Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
CommunitySub-MenuPublishersChannelsProductsSub-MenuBlog ProBlog PlusBlog PremierMicrositeSyndication PortalsAboutContactResourcesSubscribeSupport
Join
Search
Close

Say What? Ninth Circuit Says Affirmative Defenses Can’t Stop Class Certification Unless Defendant Proves the Merits of the Defense as to Every Single Class Member

By Michael R. Pennington, Sarah Sutton Osborne & Scott Burnett Smith on April 1, 2019
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

Say What? Ninth Circuit Says Affirmative Defenses Can’t Stop Class Certification Unless Defendant Proves the Merits of the Defense as to Every Single Class MemberJust when you thought litigating Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class actions was as unsafe as it could get for defendants, the Ninth Circuit said, “Not so fast.”

In McKesson v. True Health, two chiropractic practices sought to represent a class of plaintiffs who allegedly received unsolicited faxes containing advertisements in violation of the TCPA. The district court denied class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) on the grounds that consent was the primary issue to be adjudicated under the TCPA and the defendant offered a substantial showing that whether class members had provided consent could only be determined individually. The Ninth Circuit reversed and, in the process, managed to run a wrecking ball through what many thought was well-settled law on the burden of proof at the class certification stage.

From Affirmative Defense to Burden of Proof

First, the Ninth Circuit detoured into a finding that consent is an affirmative defense in a TCPA case, a proposition that itself is not free from debate. The court then leaped from that conclusion to one even more radical: that because the defendant would bear the burden of proof on the merits of the consent defense at trial, the defendant also bore the burden of proving that consent was an individualized issue and that it predominated over common issues for class certification purposes. No other circuit has ever held that a defendant bears the burden of proof on any issue relating to class certification.

That’s enough bull in the class action china shop for one day, right? Wrong. The defendant’s showing that consent was an individualized issue consisted of proof of consent by various class members through various means. However, the defendant had not attempted to prove the presence or absence of consent as to each and every class member.

The Ninth Circuit concluded that McKesson had, therefore, only carried its burden of proving that consent was an individualized impediment to certification for some but not all class members. The Ninth Circuit also concluded that class members as to whom proof had been offered would be excluded from the class and the rest of the class could be certified. McKesson petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.

Amicus Brief Submitted to Supreme Court

On behalf of DRI, the Voice of the Defense BarTM, your friends and humble narrators here submitted an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to review the case. DRI argued that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling effectively creates a presumption in favor of class certification in cases involving individualized affirmative defenses and impermissibly shifted the burden of proof on class certification. This, DRI argued, contravenes both Supreme Court precedent and the approach of every other circuit to address the issue.

Who bears the burden of proof on the merits of an issue at trial has nothing to do with whether the controversy as a whole is appropriate for class adjudication or the procedural requirements the reviewing court must follow in evaluating predominance under Rule 23. The case law until now has been uniform: The plaintiff bears the burden of proof on all issues pertaining to class certification. This case offers no sound reason in policy or in the text of Rule 23 to deviate from that long-settled approach.

DRI’s amicus brief further points out that to defeat class certification under the Ninth Circuit’s framework, the defendant is effectively forced to marshal the exact kind of individualized proof that class certification seeks to avoid. This, too, is a practical impossibility, such that the ruling effectively alters substantive law by gutting the defendant’s ability to rely on affirmative defenses when a claim is brought on a class basis. The Rules Enabling Act makes clear that a mere rule of civil procedure is not supposed to have such an effect.

The insupportable consequences of such a drastic change in settled class action law are particularly acute in the context of TCPA class actions since the TCPA provides for potentially ruinous uncapped statutory damages for even the most minor and most technical violations, whether or not they produce any real injury.

We are hopeful that the Supreme Court will grant review in this important case, as it has profound implications for class action practice.

Photo of Michael R. Pennington Michael R. Pennington

Mike Pennington has extensive experience in defending high stakes class actions and mass actions of all kinds, including class and mass actions involving mortgage servicing, insurance sales and claims practices, variable annuities, alleged product defects, construction defects, forced-placed insurance, due process and civil…

Mike Pennington has extensive experience in defending high stakes class actions and mass actions of all kinds, including class and mass actions involving mortgage servicing, insurance sales and claims practices, variable annuities, alleged product defects, construction defects, forced-placed insurance, due process and civil rights claims, and statutory damage class actions under the federal statutes such as the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and  the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). In addition to chairing Bradley’s Class Action Team, Mike is also chair of DRI’s Class Action Task Force and DRI’s Class Action Specialized Litigation Group. View articles by Mike

Read more about Michael R. PenningtonEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Sarah Sutton Osborne Sarah Sutton Osborne

Sarah Osborne’s practice focuses on complex civil litigation. Within the Construction and Government Contracts Practice Group, Sarah has experience defending construction disputes and represents government contractors in prosecuting and defending bid protests before the Government Accountability Office and the United States Court…

Sarah Osborne’s practice focuses on complex civil litigation. Within the Construction and Government Contracts Practice Group, Sarah has experience defending construction disputes and represents government contractors in prosecuting and defending bid protests before the Government Accountability Office and the United States Court of Federal Claims. View articles by Sarah.

Read more about Sarah Sutton OsborneEmailSarah's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
Photo of Scott Burnett Smith Scott Burnett Smith

Scott Burnett Smith’s practice covers class actions, complex litigation, and appeals. Scott has been involved in dozens of nationwide class actions in state and federal courts and has handled over 30 class action appeals.

Read more about Scott Burnett SmithEmail
  • Posted in:
    Class Action & Mass Torts
  • Blog:
    Declassified
  • Organization:
    Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

LexBlog, Inc. logo
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
Real Lawyers
99 Park Row
  • About LexBlog
  • Careers
  • Press
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Privacy Policy
  • Editorial Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Service
  • RSS Terms of Service
  • Products
  • Blog Pro
  • Blog Plus
  • Blog Premier
  • Microsite
  • Syndication Portals
  • LexBlog Community
  • 1-800-913-0988
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
  • Resource Center

New to the Network

  • Law of The Ledger
  • Antitrust Law Blog
  • Your ERISA Watch
  • Ciric Law Firm Blog
  • Sacramento Property & Poverty
Copyright © 2022, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo