explaining that although “conformance with Rule 23(a) ... must be checked through rigorous analysis, ... it is not always necessary ... to probe behind the pleadings before coming to rest on the certification question, because sometimes there may be no disputed factu *506 al and legal issues that strongly influence the wisdom of class treatment” (internal quotation marks omitted)
How later courts described this case
- explaining that although “conformance with Rule 23(a) ... must be checked through rigorous analysis, ... it is not always necessary ... to probe behind the pleadings before coming to rest on the certification question, because sometimes there may be no disputed factu *506 al and legal issues that strongly influence the wisdom of class treatment” (internal quotation marks omitted)
- explaining that although “conformance with Rule 23(a) . .. must be checked through rigorous analysis, . . . it is not always necessary . . . to probe behind the pleadings before coming to rest on the certification question, because sometimes there may be no disputed factual and legal issues that strongly influence the wisdom of class treatment.” (internal quotations omitted)
- concluding that “in deciding whether to afford [state court certification of nationwide class settlement] full faith and credit, we may review the substance of whether that settlement complied with the Due Process Clause,” and proceeding to consider the merits of the Shutts due process requirements
- stating that, in order to satisfy due process, “[a]ll that the notice must do is fairly apprise prospective members of the class of the terms of the proposed settlement so that class members may come to their own conclusions about whether the settlement serves their interests”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
RAYMOND M. KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
My only disagreement with the court’s opinion concerns its discussion of Gooch’s adequacy and typicality in parts II.B.4(a), (b), and (e) and II.B.6 of the majority opinion. For two reasons, I think that Gooch is an inadequate representative for any remnant of the certified class.
First, Gooch’s interests actually conflict with those of the class. Unlike virtually everyone else in the class, Gooch does not pay premiums for his policy. Meanwhile, if Life Investors must reimburse class members for medical expenses based on providers’ “list” prices (which virtually no one pays), rather than on the providers’ actual charges, then the premiums for classmembers who actually pay them are likely to increase dramatically. Gooch has no reason to care about that, which in my view makes him an inadequate representative of members who do.
Second, Gooch is not a credible representative of any remnant class. His deposition testimony regarding his finances is simply deceptive. Gooch testified that Social Security was his only source of income, that his wife chose to work overtime as a result of his medical expenses, that he and his wife owned one house, and that he and his wife owned one old car. It turns out that Gooch owns a business, that his wife never chose to work overtime, that he and his wife own another house, and that he and his wife own two newer cars in addition to the old one. These discrepancies do not reflect a “lack of insightf,]” Maj. Op. at 431; they reflect a lack of honesty.
I otherwise join the court’s thorough and well-reasoned opinion.