"Study Reveals US Courts of Appeal Are Less Receptive to Reviewing Class Certification Rulings"

by Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Skadden recently conducted a study on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform regarding acceptance rates for Rule 23(f) petitions appealing class certification rulings in federal courts. The study has confirmed what practitioners have suspected: Obtaining interlocutory appeal of class certification rulings is getting harder, particularly in certain circuits.

Troubling Signs for Defendants

Skadden’s study revealed that U.S. Courts of Appeal are significantly less receptive to interlocutory review of class certification rulings. The study analyzed 23(f) filings between October 31, 2006, and December 31, 2013, and the ultimate outcomes of these petitions.1

Less than one-quarter of petitions for interlocutory review filed in the last seven years have been granted. The data contrast with those in an earlier report, which found that federal appellate courts granted 36 percent of Rule 23(f) petitions filed between December 1, 1998, when the rule was adopted, and October 30, 2006.2

The study also revealed that the decline in 23(f) review has primarily affected class action defendants. While defendants’ petitions were granted far less frequently than during the prior period (24.8 percent, down from 45 percent), the grant rate for plaintiffs’ petitions dipped only slightly in recent years (20.5 percent, down from 22 percent).

Circuits Vary in Approaches to Rule 23(f)

In addition, the study revealed stark differences among the U.S. Courts of Appeal with respect to their approaches toward Rule 23(f) petitions:

  • The Fifth Circuit was the most receptive to Rule 23(f) jurisdiction in recent years, granting 13 (46.4 percent) of the 28 petitions filed and decided there after October 30, 2006, down from 54 percent in the previous report.
  • The second most receptive Rule 23(f) jurisdiction was the Third Circuit, which granted 24 (35.8 percent) of the 67 petitions filed and decided there (down from 86 percent previously).
  • Most jurisdictions grant a far higher percentage of appeals from defendants than from plaintiffs. For example, the Fifth Circuit granted 69.2 percent of defendants’ petitions versus 28.6 percent of plaintiffs’ petitions.
  • One of the most receptive jurisdictions for plaintiffs was the Third Circuit, which granted nine (31 percent) of the 29 decided petitions filed there by plaintiffs (down from 83 percent).
  • The First, Eighth and District of Columbia Circuits were the least friendly to Rule 23(f) petitions, with grant rates ranging from 5.4 percent in the First Circuit to 14.3 percent in the Eighth Circuit.
  • The Ninth Circuit had the most Rule 23(f) activity of any circuit and the second-lowest grant rate for defendants. More than one-third of petitions filed in the entire country were in the Ninth Circuit, but only 14.6 percent of the petitions filed by defendants were granted.

Final Dispositions Disfavor Class Certification, But Plaintiffs Are Experiencing More Success

The study also tracked the final dispositions of Rule 23(f) appeals in cases where petitions were filed during the October 31, 2006-December 31, 2013, period and found that it remains more likely for grants of class certification to be reversed on appeal than to be affirmed; and more likely for denials of class certification to be affirmed rather than reversed. In other words, once a court of appeals does grant a 23(f) petition for review, its ultimate outcome generally will disfavor class certification. According to the study:

  • U.S. Courts of Appeal have ruled against class certification 60 percent of the time in which the lower court had denied class certification and 70 percent of the time in which the lower court had granted class certification.
  • In cases where the lower court denied class certification, only the Fourth and Seventh Circuits reversed that ruling more than 50 percent of the time; however, the Fourth Circuit heard only two such cases and the Seventh Circuit heard only eight.
  • The Seventh Circuit, which heard the largest number of appeals in which the lower court had granted class certification, reversed class certification 62 percent of the time.
  • The Ninth Circuit appears to be one of the jurisdictions most likely to affirm a grant of class certification, with an affirmance rate of 50 percent. In addition, the Ninth Circuit has one of the highest reversal rates for denials of class certification at 39 percent, making it one of the most class-friendly jurisdictions.

Although U.S. Courts of Appeal have tended to side with class action defendants, class action plaintiffs have seen greater success with Rule 23(f) appeals than in previous years. In the previous report, grants of class certification were affirmed and denials were reversed 29 percent of the time, whereas from October 31, 2006, through the present, grants were affirmed 30 percent of the time and denials reversed 40 percent of the time.

These findings are concerning for defendants because low grant rates in certain circuits may signal to district courts that they are unlikely to be reversed or even reviewed in any meaningful sense, which could lead some of these courts to push the boundaries of their discretion in ruling on class certification. This is most notable in the Ninth Circuit, where defendants filed 157 Rule 23(f) petitions and only 23 were granted. The potential for aggressive or novel justifications for class treatment in these circuits is problematic for defendants because rulings granting class certification continue to exert undue settlement pressure. Thus, particular attention must be paid to meritless class actions in these circuits.

Looking Ahead: The Need to Interpret U.S. Supreme Court Jurisprudence

One potential strategy for class action defendants is to focus appellate courts on the need to interpret recent U.S. Supreme Court class action jurisprudence.3 In contrast to the U.S. Courts of Appeal, the Supreme Court has expressed a greater willingness to hear class certification cases in recent years. The last few years have produced a host of Supreme Court rulings on class action issues, including Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes, Amgen v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Trust Funds and Comcast v. Behrend. The recent Supreme Court decisions may provide an opportunity for class action litigants seeking appellate review to argue that further appellate interpretation is needed, particularly where a trial court relies on pre-Dukes and pre-Comcast appellate precedents in granting class certification.

The study results are available here.

1 Data on the cases reviewed were current through March 15, 2014.

2 Barry Sullivan & Amy Kobelski Trueblood, Rule 23(f): A Note on Law and Discretion in the Courts of Appeals, 246 F.R.D. 277, 283 (2008).

3 See “Mass Tort and Consumer Class Action Outlook: A Mixed Landscape for Defendants in 2014” (Jan. 16, 2014), available at http://insights.skadden.com/.

Download PDF

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.