U.S. Supreme Court

Case Status


Docket Number


Cert. Denied


Questions Presented

1.  Whether the court of appeals erred in holding, in conflict with decisions of the Second, Fifth, Eigth, and Eleventh Circuits, that the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 are satisfied by purportedly “common” questions that do not resolve the defendant's liability as to any individual class member and would require hundreds of separate follow-up trials.

2.  Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that Rule 23 and the Due Process Clause permit class-wide resolution of a defendant's liability through a class process that prevents the defendant from raising individualized defenses in the liability phase.

Case Updates

U.S. Supreme Court denies review of case addressing class certification standards

June 15, 2015

The petition for certiorari was denied.

U.S. Chamber files amicus brief in support of cert.

February 27, 2015

In their joint amicus brief, the U.S. Chamber and the Business Roundtable urged the U.S. Supreme Court to review a Ninth Circuit decision certifying a class of Allstate claims adjusters alleging that Allstate had an unwritten policy of forcing them to work unpaid overtime. As the brief argued, no such class can properly be certified consistent with Rule 23 or due process because the question whether each claims adjuster actually worked unpaid overtime is a necessary predicate to liability under California law—and an inherently individualized inquiry that cannot be answered on a class-wide basis.

The brief also noted that such lower-court errors in the wake of the Court’s decisions in Wal-Mart v. Dukes and Comcast v. Behrendare proliferating, requiring the Court’s intervention to clarify what those decisions mean.

Ashley C. Parrish and David M. Barnes of King & Spalding served as counsel for the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center and the Business Roundtable in this case.

Case Documents