Yesterday, the en banc Third Circuit issued an order directing supplemental briefing in the diamonds antitrust case, Sullivan v. DB Investments, Inc.
You may recall that en banc rehearing was granted in this case in August. See this blog post for a discussion of the original three-judge panel decision from July, Sullivan v. DB Investments, Inc., 613 F.3d 134 (3d Cir. 2010), which vacated an order granting final approval of a nationwide settlement of direct and indirect purchaser claims for price-fixing in the diamond industry.
Take a look at the supplemental briefing order. The questions presented for further briefing are quite interesting. An excerpt:
(1) The parties are directed to address the following assertions:
(a) the predominance inquiry requires that each potential class member share at least one identical claim;
(b) predominance is satisfied if class members have different claims as long as each contains elements requiring resolution of common issues of fact;
(c) predominance is satisfied if class members have related, but different, claims that all arise out of the same course of conduct on the part of the defendant;
(d) predominance does not examine the ‘claims,’ as such, of all potential plaintiffs, but focuses on the ‘predominance’ of common, versus individualized, issues of fact or law that will be presented by a certain class action, as framed in the complaint, and as anticipated to be tried.
[Via How Appealing.]