In Re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation
406 U.S. App. D.C. 371
D.C. Cir.2013Background
- Four major railroads imposed rate-based fuel surcharges, proliferating in the early 2000s.
- Eight plaintiffs sought class certification for all shippers paying such surcharges during 2003–2008.
- District court certified the class based on two econometric models (common factor and damages) used to show common injury in fact.
- On appeal, Behrend v. Comcast clarified limits on using models to prove predominance in class actions.
- This court granted interlocutory review under Rule 23(f) and then vacated certification in light of Behrend and concerns about false positives in the damages model.
- Remand instructed the district court to reconsider certification with Behrend’s rigorous analysis in mind.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether classwide injury can be proven with common evidence. | Rausser models show common injury. | Damages model yields false positives for legacy shippers. | No; certification vacated for lack of robust common proof. |
| Whether Behrend requires scrutiny of the damages model at certification. | Models are plausible and support predominance. | Behrend requires rigorous scrutiny of methodology. | Behrend applied; must evaluate the model, leading to vacatur. |
| Whether interlocutory review of certification was appropriate. | Unsettled law and pressurized stakes justify review. | Interlocutory review is discretionary and not automatic. | Court exercised discretionary jurisdiction under Rule 23(f) as special circumstance. |
| Whether legacy contracts undermine class-wide injury finding. | Pre-class-period contracts not part of Class; post-period injuries still classwide. | Legacy contracts show potential lack of common injury. | District court’s focus on common injury required; remand to resolve. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (class certification requires rigorous analysis, not mere pleading standards)
- Behrend v. Comcast Corp., 655 F.3d 182 (3d Cir. 2011) (damages model must relate to liability theory; Behrend sharpens scrutiny)
- Behrend v. Comcast Corp., 133 S. Ct. 1426 (S. Ct. 2013) (Behrend clarifies that models must support liability and predominate; class certification requires robust analysis)
- Amchen Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) (antitrust injury and common impact require proof via common evidence)
- Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (1982) (rigorous analysis may look behind pleadings for class certification)