Our analysis of class actions, typically called collective actions in the international litigation context, continues with a brief review of Messner v. Northshore Univ. HealthSystem, No. 10-2514 (7th Cir. 2012).   In Messner, the Seventh Circuit reviewed pursuant to the rare (in federal court) interlocutory review procedure of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f).

The antitrust allegations in the case included a challenge to a merger between two health systems.  The Federal Trade Commission successfully challenged the merger.  In the private suits, the district court denied class certification after the plaintiffs’ expert was found not to have determined antitrust impact on a class-wide basis. 

Reversing, the Court of Appeals analyzed and reversed the district court’s conclusion that that lack of uniform price increases required denial of class certification.  Said the Seventh Circuit, plaintiffs’ expert was entitled to be credit at this stage of the proceedings in concluding that despite the absence of strict uniformity of prices there could still be a common methodology to determine the fact and extent of impact.  The Court of Appeals sadi that “the degree of uniformity the district court demanded simply is not required for class certification under Rule 23(b)(3)”.   The Court of Appeals continued:

“In essence, it is imporant not to let a quest for perfect evidence become the enemy of good evidence”

Please see full article below for more information.