Spain Mexico
Philadelphia, PA Cherry Hill, NJ New York, NY 1-866-LOCKSLAW
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn
Locks Law Firm
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn
Get Started
  • No win, no fee
  • Free consultation
  • Home
  • About
    • About Us
    • The Team
    • Office Locations
    • Newsroom
    • FAQ
  • About
    • About Us
    • The Team
    • Office Locations
    • Newsroom
    • FAQ
  • Practice Areas
  • Practice Areas
    • All Practice Areas
    • Medical Malpractice and Nursing Home Abuse
    • Environmental and Toxic Torts
    • Catastrophic Personal Injuries
    • Dangerous Drugs & Devices
  • Testimonials
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • Get Started
  • Spain Mexico   Spanish
  • About
    • About Us
    • The Team
    • Office Locations
    • Newsroom
    • FAQ

    One of the most prominent personal injury law firms in the tri-state region, the Locks Law Firm is steadfastly committed to protecting the rights of seriously injured victims.

    Free Case Evaluation
  • Medical Malpractice and Nursing Home Abuse
    • Nursing Home Abuse and Neglect
    • Hospital Acquired Infections
    • Medication Errors
    • Misdiagnosis / Failure to Diagnose
    • Surgical Errors
    • Needle Stick - CRPS

    Medical malpractice is any act by a health care provider that deviates from accepted standards of medical care and results in the personal injury, disability, or wrongful death of a patient. Nursing home abuse or negligence can take many forms. It can include physical, sexual, and emotional abuse, neglect, negligent care, and even financial exploitation.

    Free Case Evaluation
  • Environmental and Toxic Torts
    • Asbestos and Mesothelioma
    • Benzene
    • Chemical Exposure
    • Manganese Exposure
    • Natural Resource Damages
    • Toxic Injuries
    • Workplace Exposure
    • Dacthal Herbicide Ban
    • PERC Exposure
    • Paraquat

    Exposure to toxic chemicals in the workplace or environment can cause serious, sometimes fatal health problems, including cancer.

    Free Case Evaluation
  • Catastrophic Personal Injuries
    • Premises Liability
    • Burns and Chemical Burns
    • Traumatic Brain Injuries
    • Spinal Cord Injuries
    • Wrongful Death

    Catastrophic personal injuries include brain and spinal cord injuries, severe burns, carbon monoxide poisoning and, most seriously, death.

    Free Case Evaluation
  • Dangerous Drugs & Devices
    • Allergan Breast Implant Recall
    • Hernia Mesh
    • IVC Filters
    • NEC Baby Formula

    At the Locks Law Firm, our pharmaceutical litigation and defective drug lawyers are committed to serving personal injury victims and are well versed in the product liability laws that protect consumers.

    Free Case Evaluation

Locks Law Firm

Philadelphia, PA

(215) 893-0100

Cherry Hill, NJ

(856) 663-8200

New York, NY

(212) 838-3333

Locks Law Firm

Philadelphia, PA

The Curtis Center
Suite 720 East
601 Walnut Street

Cherry Hill, NJ

801 North Kings Highway

New York, NY

675 Third Avenue | 8th Floor

Locks Law Firm

Philadelphia, PA

[email protected]

Cherry Hill, NJ

[email protected]

New York, NY

[email protected]

Blog

The Continuing Trend Against the “Ascertainability” Requirement in Class Actions

Last week, the United States Supreme Court denied certification in Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC, a Seventh Circuit case in which the Court refused to apply the Third Circuit’s ascertainability requirement onto Rule 23’s requirements for class certification, joining the growing number of jurisdictions to reject the doctrine.

In Mullins, the Court addressed the requirement in the context of a consumer class action alleging fraud in the sale of dietary supplements (specifically alleging that the “joint supplement” sold by Defendant  was nothing more than a sugar pill, with no support for its advertised health benefits).  Plaintiff filed for class certification and the Court certified the case as a class action.  Defendant appealed, arguing that the class was not “ascertainable” and that Plaintiffs must bear the burden of showing an “administratively feasible way to determine whether a particular person is a member of the class.”  The Defendant also argued that consumer affidavits would be insufficient as a matter of law to satisfy the requirement.

The Seventh Circuit, in rejecting this argument held that to the extent that ascertainability exists in the Circuit, it is limited to requiring clear class definitions, meaning that a person reading the definition could determine if they were a member of the class.  The Court, in weighing the value of the heightened standard of ascertainability proposed by Defendants, noted that the new standard improperly shifted the balance in Rule 23 classes, making it effectively impossible to litigate low value consumer class actions.

In reaching this conclusion, the Seventh Circuit reached the same conclusion as New Jersey State Courts, which also found last year that ascertainability was not encompassed by New Jersey’s class action rule, R.4:32, which is modeled after F.R.C.P. 23.  (See Daniels v. Hollister, 440 N.J. Super 359 (App. Div. 2015).  Both Courts recognized the reality that defendants would be unlikely to have records, and consumers would be unlikely to have receipts in these low value consumer cases, making the “heightened ascertainability” standard impossible to meet in many cases.

The Defendant’s argument in Mullins, like those in nearly all of the ascertainability cases boils down to the following:  Even if defendant is found to have committed fraud they can’t be held liable for their fraud unless Plaintiffs can show exactly who purchased their supplement.  The Defendants further advance the argument that believing consumers who swear, in an affidavit, that they purchased the produce is inappropriate, because obviously people would be quick to lie in an affidavit for the benefit of obtaining what would likely be a small monetary benefit. (In Mullins, the Plaintiff paid $69.99 for a bottle of Defendant’s product).  This bizarre argument boils down to this:  we would rather let fraudsters keep their ill gotten gains then repay consumers because someone, somewhere may lie in an affidavit.  Judge Rendell remarked on this in her concurring opinion in Byrd v. Aarons, stating:

The concerns regarding the due process rights of defendants are unwarranted as well, because there is no evidence that, in small-claims class actions, fabricated claims impose a significant harm on defendants. The chances that someone would, under penalty of perjury, sign a false affidavit stating that he or she bought Bayer aspirin for the sake of receiving a windfall of $1.59 are far-fetched at best. On the other hand, while most injured individuals will find that it is not worth the effort to claim the few dollars in damages that the class action can provide, in the aggregate, this sum is significant enough to deter corporate misconduct. Our ascertainability doctrine, by focusing on making absolutely certain that compensation is distributed only to those individuals who were actually harmed, has ignored an equally important policy objective of class actions: deterring and punishing corporate wrongdoing.

Aside from the apparent distrust of the honesty of the American consumer, the defense bar also generally objects on due process grounds – another red herring in what should be a straightforward discussion of the requirements of F.R.C.P. 23.  In the event that a class is tried, Defendant’s liability should be determined in the aggregate, it is capped by the number of supplements which they sold.  The question of which consumers receive compensation from that pool of funds does not ultimately effect the actual liability of Defendants.  Simply put, Defendants do not have a due process right to be protected in answering the question of how damages are distributed between plaintiffs after liability is determined.

Ultimately, the sole “ascertainability” question with which Courts should concern themselves in determining whether to certify a class is whether the class definition is sufficiently clear that a member of the class could see the definition and determine if they are in the class or not.  The Seventh Circuit’s decision is one more step towards unanimity on returning to the fundamental requirements of Rule 23.

James Barry

Guest Author
March 7, 2016 James Barry

Tell Us About Your Case

If you can read this, please avoid filling the following input field or your submission may be marked as spam.
Thank you for contacting us! We will be in touch with you shortly.
Uh oh. There was a problem processing your request. Please try again!
Previous Entry

Making a Murderer and “Facts”

Next Entry

A Failed Legal Career: Who Is To Blame?

Recent Entries

  • Francesca A. Iacovangelo Named 2025 Pennsylvania Super Lawyer
  • IARC’s Latest Evaluation: Automotive Gasoline Causes Cancer
  • How Personal Technology Can Help You Navigate Legal Matters
  • Seeking Justice: Locks Law Firm Represents Victims of Northeast Philadelphia Plane Crash
  • "Judicial Hellhole"

Archive

  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • December 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • January 2023
  • August 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • September 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • August 2014
  • June 2014
  • April 2014
  • February 2014
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • February 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • September 2011
  • January 2011
  • November 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
1-866-LOCKSLAW
[email protected]
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn YouTube
2021 Best Lawyers
Martindale-Hubble Award Ten Leaders

Copyright © 2025 Locks Law Firm. Made by Mindlark.

Locks Law Firm only provides legal advice after having entered into an attorney client relationship, which our website specifically does not create. Conversations that originate from website messaging, chat or other two way web based engagement  do not create an attorney client relationship. It is imperative that any action taken be done on the advice of counsel. Because every case is different, the description of awards and cases previously handled do not guarantee a similar outcome in current or future cases. The firm practices law in Pennsylvania, New Jersey & New York as Locks Law Firm. Super Lawyers, Best Lawyers in America and other organizations that rate attorneys are not designations that have been approved by the State Supreme Courts or the American Bar Association.