> Amazon argued that the class was too large to be manageable
Sorry, we've wronged too many people to be held accountable! What a wild argument.
replies(9):
Sorry, we've wronged too many people to be held accountable! What a wild argument.
>Given the unprecedented size of the proposed class consisting of 288 million members, the individualized issues on which their claims depend, and the overwhelming evidence that the challenged conduct resulted in lower prices in Amazon’s store, Plaintiffs have not—and cannot demonstrate that a class action would be manageable.
The "individualized issues" references arguments presented earlier in the filing. They also cite prior cases where class lawsuits have been denied certification because the class was too big to be manageable. You might disagree with Amazon's lawyers here, but it's unfair to characterize it as "we've wronged too many people to be held accountable". It's an "wild" argument because it's a strawman.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.29...
> we've wronged too many people to be held accountable
Sounds like exactly what it is... it's too big of a class to be managed, and therefore should not be?
In fact, the very next line is the judge saying:
> Chun found there was no evidence at this stage that the size of the class was overbroad. Other federal courts had certified class actions with millions or hundreds of millions of class members, the judge said.
You missed the other 2 of the 3 parts of that argument.
>In fact, the very next line is the judge saying:
I'm not saying they're objectively right, just that there's more to the argument than "we've wronged too many people to be held accountable".
Seems to me the parent was totally justified in calling it a wild argument.
It really wasn't. If you look at the table of contents, the part about was the class being too big was:
1. in one of the two top level arguments (II)
2. of (II), it was one of 6 sub-arguments (F)
3. of (F), the actual argument is "Plaintiffs Have Not Satisfied Rule 23(b)(3)’s Superiority Requirement.", of which the class was too big was one of three factors. For reference the other two are "the individualized issues on which their claims depend, and the overwhelming evidence that the challenged conduct resulted in lower prices in Amazon’s store"
>Seems to me the parent was totally justified in calling it a wild argument.
It really isn't. The specific legal standard is that if the total time to adjudicate all the class members is large, then class certification should be denied. This seems reasonable to me, at least in isolation. What's the point of a legal case that takes so long to resolve that by the time it's finished, everyone involved would be dead? Again, you might not agree with Amazon's argument that it's too complex to be resolved, and it's fine to deride them for thinking that the case is too complex for the court system to handle, but they're simply not making the claim that they should be let off the hook on the basis of 300 million plaintiffs alone.
No-one's suing Amazon for this on an individual basis. And nor is any lawyer taking this case for a few bucks (literally).
That doesn't mean there has been a wrong. That's part of the purpose of a class action.
> If a lawsuit ends up taking 100 years because that's long it takes to adjudicate each class member (which was the case in a prior unrelated lawsuit)
Citation?