Administrative Feasibility Not Prerequisite to Certification

Eleventh Circuit Enters the Circuit Split

The Eleventh Circuit held “that administrative feasibility is not a requirement for certification under Rule 23.” It further concluded that “[a]dministrative feasibility alone will rarely, if ever, be dispositive, but its significance will depend on the facts of each case.”

First, the appeals court explained that though Rule 23 does not mention ascertainability, it impliedly requires that a proposed class be ascertainable, meaning “adequately defined such that its membership is capable of determination.” It noted that a clear class definition is necessary for a district court to determine whether the putative class satisfies the rule’s enumerated requirements for certification, such as the existence of common facts and law, the numerosity of class members, and the typicality of the claims or defenses of those members.

Next, the Eleventh Circuit concluded a requirement of administrative feasibility could not be implied from the text of Rule 23. It explained that even if the identification of class members was not “convenient,” plaintiffs could still evaluate whether a proposed class meets the elements of commonality, numerosity, and typicality under Rule 23(a).

However, the appeals court did acknowledge that administrative feasibility may be relevant under Rule 23(b)(3)(D), which requires a district court “to consider the likely difficulties in managing a class action” as part of its determination that a class action is superior to other methods of litigation. The Eleventh Circuit noted that this is where administrative feasibility is more appropriately couched because “[a] difficulty in identifying class members is a difficulty in managing a class action.” It further explained that Rule 23(b)(3) requires a balancing test where the manageability of a class is just one of the factors weighed. In the event of “unusually difficult manageability problems,” the appeals court observed that the district court “has discretion to insist on the details of the plaintiff’s plan for notifying the class and managing the action” or to later decertify a class that turns out to be unmanageable.

In so holding, the Eleventh Circuit joins the Second, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits in rejecting a heightened standard for ascertainability. By contrast, the First, Third, and Fourth Circuits require a showing of the administrative feasibility of a class as part of the implied requirement of ascertainability.

The Battle Continues

“I think that the court gets it right in saying administrative feasibility is one of several considerations rather than an outright prerequisite to class certification,” says Adam Polk, San Francisco, CA, cochair of the Litigation Section’s Class Action & Derivative Suits Committee. “This court says it is a consideration, not as a part of the rule as a dispositive element, but under a subpart of the rule as a general consideration,” he explains.

Section leaders believe this holding will make class certification easier. “Administrative feasibility is not easy to prove—it is something you need to develop evidence for,” adds Polk. “Therefore, the lack of an administrative feasibility requirement removes an unnecessary impediment to certification,” he concludes. “Class certification is relatively difficult—often times considerable evidence is needed. The days of class certification being a procedural motion are over,” Polk observes.

The holding brings to light other considerations for Section leaders. “Though the case does not discuss it directly, there is an implication that under [ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct] Rule 3.3, both sides need to be truthful and forthcoming with the court about the issue of administrative feasibility,” says Laura Lin, San Francisco, CA, cochair of the Section’s Ethics & Professionalism Committee. “If there is a way to administer in a feasible fashion, you must be forthright with the court and acknowledge this,” advises Linn.

Section leaders caution there is no end in sight to the divided courts. “This is just an ongoing battle,” recognizes Polk. “The divide among the circuits just keeps getting deeper—it may even get deeper before it gets better,” Polk warns.

Hashtags: #ClassAction, #ClassCertification, #FRCP23

Resources

• Stephen Carr, “A New Resource for the Fractured Class Action” Litigation News (Last visited Sept. 6, 2021).
• Candice A. Garcia-Rodrigo, “Administrative Feasibility Rejected in Certifying Class,” Litigation News (July 7, 2017).
• Adam E. Polk, “Rule 23 Does Not Include an ‘Administrative Feasibility’ Requirement: Ninth Circuit,” Class Actions & Derivative Suits (Jan. 17, 2017).
• In re Nexium Antitrust Litig., 777 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2015).
• In re Petrobas Sec., 862 F.3d 250 (2d Cir. 2017).
• Byrd v. Aaron’s Inc., 784 F.3d 154 (3d Cir. 2015).
• EQT Prod. Co. v. Adair, 764 F.3d 347 (4th Cir. 2014)
• Rikos v. Procter & Gamble Co., 799 F.3d 497 (6th Cir. 2015).
• Mullins v. Direct Digit., LLC, 795 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 2015).
• Sandusky Wellness Ctr., LLC v. Medtox Sci., Inc., 821 F.3d 992 (8th Cir. 2016).
• Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 844 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2017).

_{Copyright © 2022, American Bar Association. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or downloaded or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association. The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of the American Bar Association, the Litigation Section, this committee, or the employer(s) of the author(s).}