Case Name: IN RE: COMCAST CORP. SET-TOP CABLE TELEVISION BOX ANTITRUST LITIGATION James Deanne; William Gonzales; State of West Virginia, Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-31
Citations: 656 F. App'x 8
Docket Number: No. 15-3983
Parties: IN RE: COMCAST CORP. SET-TOP CABLE TELEVISION BOX ANTITRUST LITIGATION James Deanne; William Gonzales; State of West Virginia, Appellants
Judges: Before: FUENTES, KRAUSE, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 656
Pages: 8–9

Head Matter:
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

Opinion:
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),