Brown v. Cameron-Brown Co.

District Court, E.D. Virginia
92 F.R.D. 32 (1981)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

In an antitrust action, a class may be certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when common questions regarding the existence and impact of an alleged conspiracy predominate over individual issues, particularly where individual damages are susceptible to mathematical or formulaic calculation.

Facts:

Fourteen mortgagors (plaintiffs) obtained residential mortgage loans from various lending institutions.
As a condition of their loans, the mortgagors were required to make monthly payments into non-interest-bearing 'escrow accounts' to cover annual taxes and insurance premiums.
The mortgage lenders allegedly used these escrowed funds for their own profitable purposes without paying interest or providing any pecuniary benefit to the mortgagors.
Plaintiffs allege that this practice resulted from a concerted conspiracy among lending institutions, originating in the 1960s, to eliminate the alternative 'capitalization' method of accounting for escrow payments.
As a result of this alleged conspiracy, mortgage loans with the capitalization option became unavailable in the market, injuring the plaintiffs.
The named plaintiffs learned about the possibility of a lawsuit through meetings at their labor union and agreed to be liable for up to $5,000 in potential costs.

Procedural Posture:

Fourteen mortgagors (plaintiffs) sued thirty-eight lending institutions (defendants) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
The complaint alleged violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, and the Virginia Antitrust Act.
Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the suit as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3).
The court previously denied the plaintiffs' motion for certification under Rule 23(b)(2) and took the motion for certification under Rule 23(b)(3) under advisement.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a proposed class of mortgagors alleging an antitrust conspiracy among lenders to require non-interest-bearing escrow accounts satisfy the predominance and superiority requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) for class action certification?

Opinions:

Majority - Warriner, District Judge

Yes, the proposed class satisfies the predominance and superiority requirements for certification under Rule 23(b)(3). The court found that plaintiffs met all four prerequisites of Rule 23(a): numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. The court then determined that under Rule 23(b)(3), common questions predominate because proof of the alleged conspiracy, its implementation, and its impact would be substantially the same for each class member. Unlike the complex, individualized injuries in Windham v. American Brands, Inc., the damages in this case are susceptible to mathematical or formulaic calculation, which prevents individual damage issues from overwhelming the common questions. Furthermore, a class action is the superior method for adjudication, as individual claims are likely too small to be brought separately, and other alternatives like joinder or a test case are less efficient.

Analysis:

This decision provides a key counterpoint to the Fourth Circuit's restrictive approach to class certification in antitrust cases established by Windham v. American Brands, Inc. The court distinguishes Windham by focusing on the nature of the damages, establishing that when damages can be calculated formulaically, the need for individual 'mini-trials' is eliminated, and common questions of liability can predominate. This ruling offers a pathway for certifying class actions in cases of widespread, uniform economic injury, particularly in the financial services sector. It reinforces the utility of Rule 23 devices like bifurcation and subclassification to manage complex cases that might otherwise be deemed uncertifiable.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Brown v. Cameron-Brown Co. (1981)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"