Kamakahi v. American Society for Reproductive Medicine
305 F.R.D. 164, 90 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1462, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12677 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In an antitrust class action, the need for individualized determinations of damages and injury-in-fact does not prevent certification of an issue class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(4) to adjudicate the common question of whether the defendants' conduct violated antitrust laws.
Facts:
- Defendants American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) and Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) are professional organizations that establish standards for the majority of U.S. fertility clinics.
- In 2000, ASRM published ethical guidelines concerning compensation for women who donate eggs (oocytes) for reproductive purposes.
- These guidelines stated that compensation sums of $5,000 or more required justification and sums above $10,000 were 'not appropriate.' ASRM reaffirmed these guidelines in 2007.
- SART required its member clinics, which comprised over 85% of assisted reproductive technology clinics in the U.S., to follow ASRM's guidelines as a condition of membership.
- SART also encouraged non-member egg donation agencies to follow the guidelines and maintained a public list of compliant agencies.
- Plaintiffs Lindsay Kamakahi and Justine Levy each donated eggs at SART member clinics and received monetary compensation, allegedly suppressed by the guidelines.
Procedural Posture:
- In April 2011, plaintiff Lindsay Kamakahi filed a class action complaint against ASRM, SART, and a fertility clinic in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
- In August 2011, plaintiff Justine Levy filed a separate class action complaint against ASRM and SART in the same court.
- The district court granted a motion to consolidate the two cases in March 2012.
- Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint in April 2012, which no longer named the fertility clinic as a defendant.
- Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the district court denied, holding that plaintiffs had adequately pleaded a per se violation of the Sherman Act.
- The parties stipulated to refer the case to a magistrate judge for all purposes.
- Plaintiffs then moved for class certification for a class of past egg donors for damages and a subclass of future donors for injunctive relief.
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 the need for individualized proof of damages and injury-in-fact for each class member prevent the certification of an issue class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(4) to determine whether defendants' compensation guidelines for egg donors constitute a violation of the Sherman Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Joseph C. Spero
No. The need for individualized proof of damages and injury-in-fact does not prevent the certification of an issue class to determine liability. The court found that while the plaintiffs failed to show that damages and impact could be proven on a class-wide basis, the central question of whether the Defendants' guidelines constituted an illegal price-fixing agreement under the Sherman Act was a common question that predominated over individual issues. Citing Ninth Circuit precedent, the court reasoned that damage calculations alone cannot defeat certification and that it is proper to bifurcate proceedings under Rule 23(c)(4), certifying a class to resolve the liability issue first. This approach achieves judicial economy by resolving the core question of the alleged antitrust violation for all class members at once, while leaving individualized damages and injury-in-fact questions for a later stage if liability is established.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the Ninth Circuit's position that class actions remain viable in complex cases, like antitrust suits, even when damages are highly individualized. It highlights the utility of Rule 23(c)(4) for certifying 'issue classes,' allowing courts to resolve common liability questions collectively before tackling more complex, individualized damage assessments. This bifurcated approach promotes efficiency and prevents an entire class action from failing simply because damages cannot be calculated with a single, class-wide formula. The case also serves as a critical reminder of the standing requirements for injunctive relief, demonstrating that past harm is insufficient; a plaintiff must show a concrete and imminent threat of future injury.
Unlock the full brief for Kamakahi v. American Society for Reproductive Medicine