“I part company ... with the majority’s conclusion that, before certifying a class, the district court must find that only a ‘de minimis’ number of class members are uninjured.  The text of Rule 23 contains no such requirement, nor do our precedents. The majority’s effective amendment of Rule 23 not only ignores our case law but also circumvents the established process for modifying a Rule of Civil Procedure—study and advice from the relevant committees, followed by the consent of the Supreme Court and Congress’s tacit approval.”
 
That is what Ninth Circuit Judge Andrew Hurwitz said in his partial concurrence and partial dissent in Olean Wholesale v. Bumble Bee, in which the panel itself set the wheels in motion for en banc review of a holding that, if allowed to stand, would have added another high hurdle for plaintiffs to overcome in achieving certification of class actions. The full court decertified the decision pending review. 

For insights into the case are two attorneys who submitted arguments in the case. They are Karla Gilbride, Senior Attorney at Public Justice, and Jocelyn D. Larkin, Executive Director at the Impact Fund. 
 
Listen to what they say about the case, why it’s significant, and what they believe will be the ultimate outcome. 
 
I hope you find the episode inspiring and informative! 
 
Susan Gombert
Host

Justice Pod: Conversations with Public Justice Change Makers