Court Opinion

ID: 9864096
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 12:08:36.726855+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:08:35.644786
License: Public Domain

COOK, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
CONCURRING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART
I agree with the majority that Andrews does not bar consideration of the proposed *654Rule 23(b)(3) class. See Maj. Op. at 645-49; see also In re Vertrue, 719 F.3d at 479-80. I cannot agree, however, that we can read Andrews so narrowly as to allow the proposed 23(b)(2) class to go forward. Though the plaintiffs and the district court offer persuasive reasons to doubt the wisdom of Andrews, I believe it binds us to dismiss the 23(b)(2) claims absent reconsideration by the full court. See Grundy Mining Co. v. Flynn, 353 F.3d 467, 479 (6th Cir.2003) (noting that we do not “enjoy greater latitude” in departing from prior published decisions “where our precedents purportedly are tainted by analytical flaws”). I would therefore vacate and remand the district court’s judgment only as to the putative 23(b)(3) class.