From David M. McMillan:
In what appears to be an increasingly common practice since the Supreme Court decided Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S.Ct. 1426 (2013), the Southern District of New York recently certified a class as to liability, but rejected certification as to damages. Fort Worth Employees' Retirement Fund v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., — F.R.D. —-, 2014 WL 4840752, 09-3701 (JPO) (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 30, 2014). Taking a cue from Comcast, the Court held that the predominance requirement for class certification—that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members," see Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)—requires plaintiffs to specify a damages methodology that can be utilized for the entire class. The plaintiffs, investors in certain mortgage-backed securities issued by JP Morgan Chase & Co. and related entities (collectively "JPM"), failed to adequately specify the methodology they planned to use to value the securities at issue. The Court therefore rejected certification as to damages and placed responsibility on each class member to prove damages on a member-by-member basis. The Court, however, found that the plaintiffs proved predominance as to liability and certified the class for that limited purpose. (continue reading).