In re Rand Corp.

Opinion

ORDER

Upon consideration of the petition for leave to appeal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f) and the opposition thereto; respondents' motion to govern further proceedings and the opposition thereto; petitioner's motion to govern further proceedings and the opposition thereto, it is

ORDERED that the petition for leave to appeal be denied. Petitioner claims that this case presents "unsettled and fundamental issues of law relating to class actions, important both to the specific litigation and generally, that [are] likely to evade end-of-the-case review," and the district court's class certification decision is "manifestly erroneous." In re:  Lorazepam & Chlorazepate Antitrust Litig., 289 F.3d 98, 99-100 (D.C. Cir. 2002). However,  [*2]  the propriety of a district court's refusal to scrutinize for admissibility and probative value evidence proffered to demonstrate that the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) are satisfied is well-settled. See  Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 177, 40 L. Ed. 2d 732, 94 S. Ct. 2140 (1974); see also  Caridad v. Metro-North Commuter R.R., 191 F.3d 283, 292 (2d Cir. 1999) ("statistical dueling" between parties is irrelevant to propriety of class certification) (internal quotations omitted). Moreover, petitioner has failed to support its assertions that the class members' claims are "highly individualized," and that "the validity and adequacy of plaintiffs' statistical" evidence are not issues common to the entire class. Finally, that the district court refused to address the merits of this action in granting class certification does not establish that the certification is manifestly erroneous.

Because no appeal has been allowed, no mandate shall issue. The Clerk is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the district court.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.