Case ID: f-appx_656/html/0008-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Cheryl Ann Krause, Circuit Judge", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

IN RE: COMCAST CORP. SET-TOP CABLE TELEVISION BOX ANTITRUST LITIGATION James Deanne; William Gonzales; State of West Virginia, Appellants
    No. 15-3983
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) August 25, 2016
    Dated: August 31, 2016
    Justin N. Boley, Esq., Amy E. Keller, Esq., Wexler Wallace, Chicago, IL, Erin C. Burns, Esq., Dianne M. Nast, Esq., Philadelphia, PA, Stephen A. Corr, Esq., Begley Carlin & Mandio, Langhorne, PA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Jaime A. Bianchi, Esq., Angela Daker, Esq., White & Case, Miami, FL, Arthur J. Burke, Esq., James W. Haldin, Esq., Davis Polk & Wardwell, New York, NY, M. Norman Goldberger, Esq., Matthew A. White, Esq., Ballard Spahr, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: FUENTES, KRAUSE, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
   ORDER

Cheryl Ann Krause, Circuit Judge

This case came to be considered on the record from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and was submitted pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) on August 25, 2016.

Because the parties do not dispute that the District Court erred in denying certification to the proposed Settlement Class on the ground that the class was not ascertainable, and we are in agreement, we summarily REVERSE the judgment of the District Court entered on November 5, 2015 and REMAND for further proceedings as appropriate in the District Court. The concern that a defendant be “able to test the reliability of the evidence submitted to prove class membership,” Carrera v. Bayer Corp., 727 F.3d 300, 307 (3d. Cir. 2013), is not implicated by this case, where the defendant has agreed that the evidence regarding class membership is sufficiently reliable. Similarly, the concern that “[t]he method of determining whether someone is in the class ... be administratively feasible,” id. is not implicated by this case, because the settlement agreement removes the need for a trial. See Sullivan v. DB Investments, Inc., 667 F.3d 273, 335 (3d Cir. 2011) (Scirica, J. concurring),