First Published Wisconsin Appellate Opinion Applying New Class Action Rule
August 21, 2019
In 2017, the Wisconsin Supreme Court adopted a new class action rule, modeled after Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, with the avowed purpose of aligning state class-action practice with the federal practice and encouraging resort to the body of case law interpreting the federal rule.
In the first published appellate opinion of which I’m aware that undertakes that charge, written by Judge Kitty Brennan of District I, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed certification of a class of persons claiming that they had been overcharged by a hospital for copies of their medical records. The decision is Harwood v. Wheaton Franciscan Servs., Inc., No. 2018 AP 1836. The case provides a good road map through the class-certification requirements.
The hospital’s principal argument on appeal was that the circuit court should have allowed more discovery before certifying the class. The appellate court upheld the certification as an appropriate exercise of discretion.
The only matter of substantive significance in the opinion was the court’s rejection (following the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC, 795 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 2015)) of the Third Circuit’s adoption of “heightened ascertainability standards” in such cases as Marcus v. BMW of North America, LLC, 687 F.3d 583 (3d Cir. 2012).
In the first published appellate opinion of which I’m aware that undertakes that charge, written by Judge Kitty Brennan of District I, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed certification of a class of persons claiming that they had been overcharged by a hospital for copies of their medical records. The decision is Harwood v. Wheaton Franciscan Servs., Inc., No. 2018 AP 1836. The case provides a good road map through the class-certification requirements.
The hospital’s principal argument on appeal was that the circuit court should have allowed more discovery before certifying the class. The appellate court upheld the certification as an appropriate exercise of discretion.
The only matter of substantive significance in the opinion was the court’s rejection (following the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC, 795 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 2015)) of the Third Circuit’s adoption of “heightened ascertainability standards” in such cases as Marcus v. BMW of North America, LLC, 687 F.3d 583 (3d Cir. 2012).
Author(s)
Related Insights
November 11, 2020
Wisconsin Appellate Law
Arbitrator Snooze … You Lose? A Reminder to Raise Specific Objections to an Arbitrator First, or Risk Forfeiting Them on Appeal
You represent a business owner who ends up arbitrating a dispute with a supplier. After spending tons of time and money preparing for the 5-day evidentiary hearing, you look up to hear snoring from the arbitrator – he fell asleep for part of the proceedings!
April 8, 2019
Blogs
Wisconsin Supreme Court Clears the Path to the Courtroom for Member-Driven LLC Litigation
Wisconsin’s Supreme Court issued an important decision last week in Marx v. Morris, holding that “[c]orporate principles of derivative standing do not apply to the distinct business form of an LLC.”
November 14, 2018
Blogs
The Need for a Marks Rule in Wisconsin
This article is the fourth and final installment in our series on the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s recently completed 2017-18 term.