Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin
417 U.S. 156 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a class action lawsuit maintained under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), the representative plaintiff must provide individual notice to all class members who can be identified through reasonable effort. The plaintiff must also initially bear the entire cost of this notice, and a court may not conduct a preliminary inquiry into the merits of the case to shift this cost to the defendant.
Facts:
- Morton Eisen was an investor who traded stocks in 'odd lots' (fewer than 100 shares) on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE).
- During the period of May 1962 through June 1966, respondent brokerage firms Carlisle & Jacquelin and DeCoppet & Doremus handled 99% of the odd-lot trading on the NYSE.
- These firms charged an 'odd-lot differential,' a fixed surcharge added to the price of every share traded, which Eisen alleged was excessive.
- For stocks trading below $40, the differential was 1/8 of a point (12.5 cents) per share, and for stocks at or above $40, it was 1/4 of a point (25 cents) per share.
- Eisen's personal damages from the alleged overcharge amounted to only $70.
- The proposed class of affected odd-lot traders consisted of approximately six million individuals and institutions.
- Through reasonable effort, the names and addresses of approximately 2,250,000 of these class members could be identified from brokerage firm records.
Procedural Posture:
- Morton Eisen filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Carlisle & Jacquelin, DeCoppet & Doremus, and the New York Stock Exchange.
- The District Court first dismissed the suit as a class action.
- Eisen appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which, in 'Eisen I,' found the dismissal to be an appealable final order.
- In a later decision, 'Eisen II,' the Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal and remanded the case to the District Court to further consider the requirements for a class action.
- On remand, the District Court held an evidentiary hearing and certified the class.
- The District Court ordered a combined notice scheme of individual mailings to a small subset of the class and publication, at a cost of approximately $21,720.
- After a preliminary hearing on the merits, the District Court found the plaintiff was 'more than likely' to win and ordered the defendants (respondents) to bear 90% of the notice costs.
- The respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals, which, in 'Eisen III,' reversed the District Court's order.
- The Court of Appeals held that individual notice was required for all 2.25 million identifiable class members, that the plaintiff had to bear the entire cost, and dismissed the suit as a class action.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Eisen's petition for a writ of certiorari.
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 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2) require a plaintiff in a (b)(3) class action to provide individual notice to all reasonably identifiable class members at their own expense, without a preliminary inquiry into the merits of the case?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Powell
Yes, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2) requires the plaintiff to provide individual notice to all reasonably identifiable class members at their own expense. The rule's language, which requires 'the best notice practicable under the circumstances, including individual notice to all members who can be identified through reasonable effort,' is an unambiguous and mandatory requirement, not a discretionary consideration. Citing Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., the Court affirmed that due process requires notice reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties of the action, and where names and addresses are known, mailed notice is required. The Court rejected the argument that the prohibitive cost of notice or the small individual stakes of class members could justify waiving this requirement, stating that notice requirements cannot be tailored to fit the plaintiff's budget. Furthermore, the Court held that Rule 23 provides no authority for a court to conduct a preliminary hearing on the merits to determine whether to shift the cost of notice to the defendant. Such a procedure would contravene the Rule's command to determine class certifiability 'as soon as practicable' and would unfairly prejudice the defendant. Therefore, the usual rule that a plaintiff must finance their own litigation applies, and Eisen must bear the full cost of notice.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Douglas
While generally agreeing with the majority's interpretation of Rule 23's notice and cost requirements for the full class, the dissent argues that the Court's opinion does not fully explore the options available on remand that could keep the lawsuit viable. The dissent emphasizes that under Rule 23(c)(4), a district court has the express power to divide the class into manageable subclasses. For example, a smaller subclass of traders could be certified as a test case, which would make the cost of providing individual notice reasonable and affordable for the plaintiff. The dissent argues that the purpose of Rule 23 is to provide flexibility in managing class actions, and the trial court should be encouraged to use tools like subclassing to ensure that small claimants have a practical remedy against powerful entities, rather than allowing procedural hurdles like notice costs to terminate a potentially meritorious case entirely.
Analysis:
This decision significantly raised the financial barrier for bringing large-scale, small-claimant class actions, particularly in the antitrust and consumer protection fields. By strictly interpreting the individual notice and cost allocation requirements of Rule 23, the Court made it clear that the procedural due process rights of absent class members to receive notice were paramount, even if enforcing those rights made the class action device economically unfeasible for the representative plaintiff. The ruling effectively eliminated the 'fluid class' recovery and cost-shifting mechanisms that some lower courts had begun to experiment with to manage massive class actions. Consequently, the case shifted substantial financial risk to plaintiffs' attorneys, forcing them to front enormous costs for notice before ever reaching the merits of a case.
Unlock the full brief for Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin