Case Name: Fred SPAGNOLA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Jonathan Bernstein, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GREAT NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY, The Chubb Corporation, Defendants-Appellees, Federal Insurance Company, John D. Finnegan, Thomas F. Motamed, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-08-22
Citations: 531 F. App'x 93
Docket Number: Nos. 12-1521-cv, 12-2746-cv
Parties: Fred SPAGNOLA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Jonathan Bernstein, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GREAT NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY, The Chubb Corporation, Defendants-Appellees, Federal Insurance Company, John D. Finnegan, Thomas F. Motamed, Defendants.
Judges: Present RICHARD C. WESLEY, PETER W. HALL and SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 531
Pages: 93–94

Head Matter:
Fred SPAGNOLA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Jonathan Bernstein, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GREAT NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY, The Chubb Corporation, Defendants-Appellees, Federal Insurance Company, John D. Finnegan, Thomas F. Motamed, Defendants.
Nos. 12-1521-cv, 12-2746-cv.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Aug. 22, 2013.
Peter S. Linden, Edward M. Varga III, Andrew McNeela, Roger W. Kirby (of counsel), Kirby Mclnerney LLP, Harold Edgar, (of counsel), Law Office of Harold Edgar, Kenneth Elan, Law Office of Kenneth Elan, New York, NY, for Appellant.
Joseph G. Finnerty III, Keara M. Gordon, DLA Piper LLP (U.S.), New York, NY, Sara Z. Moghadam, DLA Piper LLP (U.S.), Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Present RICHARD C. WESLEY, PETER W. HALL and SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the caption in the case to conform with the above.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Plaintiffs-Appellants Fred Spagnola and Jonathan Bernstein appeal from a decision issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Baer, J.) denying them class certification. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.
Plaintiff-Appellant Spagnola commenced this litigation in September 2006. The district court dismissed the majority of Spagnola's claims, and on appeal, this Court affirmed the dismissal, but remanded for the court to further re-examine claims relating to certain language in the policy. On remand, the district court coordinated Spagnola's case with Bernstein's, who had filed while Spagnola sought appeal. Together, they filed for class certification and were denied. Spagnola and Bernstein appealed, but this Court remanded for reconsideration sua sponte in light of Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 2541, 180 L.Ed.2d 874 (2011). The district court found Wal-Mart had limited import for the instant case; affirmed its prior order; and denied class certification. This appeal followed.
Plaintiffs-Appellants appeal on the grounds that the district court's denial of class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4) and (b)(3) was in error.
This Court applies an abuse of discretion standard "both [to] the lower court's ultimate determination on certification of a class as well as to its rulings that the individual Rule 23 requirements have been met." Myers v. Hertz Corp., 624 F.3d 537, 547 (2d Cir.2010). The district court "is empowered to make a decision — of its choosing — that falls within a range of permissible decisions," and the Court will only find "abuse" when the district court's decision "rests on an error of law . or a clearly erroneous factual finding, or . its decision . cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions." Myers, 624 F.3d at 547. The parties seeking class certification-here, Spagnola and Bernstein-bear the burden of establishing the evidence that each of Rule 23's requirements has been met. See Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 614, 117 S.Ct. 2231, 138 L.Ed.2d 689 (1997).
Nothing in the lower court's well-reasoned decision finding that Plaintiffs-Appellants failed to meet their burden of demonstrating that they were adequate class representatives, or that common questions predominated in the proposed class action, veers outside the range of permissible decisions.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.