Roach v. T.L. Cannon Corp.
778 F.3d 401
2d Cir.2015Background
- Four former Applebee’s employees sued T.L. Cannon Corp. under the New York Labor Law (spread-of-hours and rest-break claims) and brought related federal claims; they moved to certify Rule 23 classes.
- Magistrate Judge Peebles recommended certifying a spread-of-hours class (limited dates) but denied certification on the rest-break claim because of adequacy concerns.
- After the Supreme Court decided Comcast v. Behrend, the district court rejected the magistrate’s recommendations and denied certification of both claims solely because plaintiffs did not offer a classwide damages model.
- The district court read Comcast to require that damages be measurable on a classwide basis to satisfy Rule 23(b)(3) predominance.
- Plaintiffs appealed under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(e) and Rule 23(f); the Second Circuit granted review to decide whether Comcast changed Circuit law that individualized damages alone cannot defeat certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Comcast requires classwide damages measurement to certify under Rule 23(b)(3) | Comcast does not overrule prior Second Circuit law; individualized damages do not automatically defeat predominance | District court (Cannon) argued that Comcast supports denying certification because plaintiffs lack a damages model measurable across the class | Court held Comcast does not mandate a classwide damages model; individualized damages alone cannot defeat certification |
| Whether the district court properly denied certification based solely on absence of a classwide damages model | Certification should be evaluated on predominance considering generalized proof of liability vs. individualized damages | District court relied exclusively on Comcast to deny certification | Court held the district court abused its reasoning by resting denial solely on Comcast and vacated the order |
| Proper scope of Comcast at certification stage | Comcast requires only that any damages model used tie damages to the certified theory of liability; it does not foreclose certification where damages vary individually | Comcast requires classwide damages measurability for certification | Held that Comcast’s holding is narrower: a damages model relied upon must measure damages attributable to the certified theory, but plaintiffs need not always present a classwide damages model to meet predominance |
| Remand / disposition | Plaintiffs requested certification on the record | Cannon opposed | Court vacated the denial and remanded for the district court to apply proper Rule 23(b)(3) analysis; declined to order certification itself |
Key Cases Cited
- Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013) (Supreme Court clarified limits on damages models used at class-certification stage)
- Seijas v. Republic of Argentina, 606 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2010) (individualized damages do not automatically defeat Rule 23(b)(3) certification)
- McLaughlin v. American Tobacco Co., 522 F.3d 215 (2d Cir. 2008) (damages-as-a-factor approach in predominance analysis)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (Rule 23(a) rigorous analysis and overlap with merits)
- In re U.S. Foodservice Inc. Pricing Litig., 729 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2013) (predominance satisfied when generalized proof of liability outweighs individual issues)