Highlights from this issue include:
- Predominance and Classwide Damage Models. The Ninth Circuit held that class action plaintiffs may rely on a reliable though not-yet-executed damages model (in this case a proposed but not done conjoint analysis) to demonstrate that damages are susceptible to common proof so long as the district court finds that the model is reliable and, if applied to the proposed class, will be able to calculate damages in a manner common to the class at trial.
- Daubert Analysis. The Fifth Circuit affirmed that district courts must conduct a “full” Daubert analysis and “apply Daubert’s reliability standard with full force” when basing a class certification decision in part on an expert’s analysis. The Fifth Circuit found the district court did not do enough when it only “noted [the expert’s] credentials, stated that the [expert’s] report was reliable, and concluded that the [expert’s] report would be ‘considered where pertinent.’”
- Incentive Awards and Standing. The Seventh Circuit held a named plaintiff has standing because the prospect of an incentive aware is enough to support a concrete interest in the litigation
