Ohio Appeals Court Dents Plaintiffs’ Class Certification Motion

Author: Jeremy Gilman (former Partner at Benesch Law)

Four independent auto body shops sued Progressive Casualty Insurance Company in state court in Cleveland.  Their gripe?  They claimed that they repaired Progressive-covered vehicles but that Progressive tortiously interfered with their relationships with their customers “by dictating what services and parts” Progressive was “willing to pay for” when the body shops were “tasked with repairing” a covered vehicle.  They also complained that Progressive improperly “dictate[d] the labor rates” it was willing to pay the body shops “without regard to a particular shop’s rates.”  “[T]hese limitations,” plaintiffs contended, did “not necessarily allow for them to restore an insured’s car to its original, pre-loss condition,” which they alleged violated both Ohio law and Progressive’s own insurance policies. Continue reading “Ohio Appeals Court Dents Plaintiffs’ Class Certification Motion”

Sixth Circuit Holds That Ascertainability Not a Requirement in Rule 23(B)(2) Class Actions

On October 17, 2016, in a case of first impression, the Sixth Circuit held that ascertainability is not a requirement in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) class actions.  The Sixth Circuit joined three other Circuits and reasoned that because there is no notice requirement in Rule 23(b)(2) class actions seeking injunctive or declaratory relief, the precise identity of each class member need not be ascertained. Continue reading “Sixth Circuit Holds That Ascertainability Not a Requirement in Rule 23(B)(2) Class Actions”