Brief Fact Summary.
Plaintiffs, odd-lot traders, desire to be certified as a class and defendant challenges their certification.
Synopsis of Rule of Law.
Under FRCP 23(c)(2) individual notice must be issued to every identifiable class member whose names and addresses may be ascertained through a reasonable effort, and the plaintiff must initially bear the cost of providing this notice.
Economic reality dictates that petitioner's suit proceed as a class action or not at all.View Full Point of Law
Eisen on behalf of himself and other odd-lot traders brought suit against Defendants Carlisle & Jacquelin and DeCoppet & Doremus who handled 99% of odd-lot trading and were charging really high fees. Plaintiffs accused Defendants of having unlawful monopoly power in violation of the Sherman Act. Defendant challenged the class certification under FRCP 23 and the district court granted their motion to decertify the class. On appeal, the court of appeals issued two rulings: (1) the district court’s decision was final and properly appealable and (2) the class may be able to be properly certified. Defendant appealed again. The court appeals then reversed the district court’s determination and denied the class certification. The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari.
Under FRCP 23(c)(2) must individual notice be issued to every identifiable class member whose name and addresses may be ascertained through a reasonable effort and must the plaintiff initially bear the cost of providing this notice to the class?
Yes, under FRCP 23(c)(2) individual notice must be issued to every identifiable class member whose name and address may be ascertained through a reasonable effort and the plaintiff must initially bear the cost of providing this noticeto the class.
Justice Justice Doulgas with Justices Brennan and Justice Marshall dissenting in part
The majority should have given more direction to the district court to follow on remand. Specifically that many of Plaintiffs’ problems can be solved with subclasses.