Jaroslawicz v. M&T Bank Corporation et al
Filing
221
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court hereby finds that its August 28, 2023 Opinion clearly erred as a matter of law by failing to rigorously analyze the competing evidence in order to resolve the genuine disputed of the Parties regarding the requi rements of Rule 23(b)(3). The Court retains jurisdiction over this matter, and hereby Orders under its inherent authority to reconsider its prior interlocutory orders that it will review and amend its August 28, 2023 Opinion consistent with Third Circuit precedent in Hydrogen Peroxide. (PLEASE SEE WHOLE MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS) Signed by Judge Evan J Wallach on 11/1/2023. (apk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
DAVID JAROSLAWICZ, Individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
C.A. No. 15-00897-EJW
v.
M&T BANK CORPORATION, HUDSON
CITY BANCORP INC., ROBERT G.
WILMERS, RENE F. JONES, MARK J.
CZARNECKI, BRENT D. BAIRD,
ANGELA C. BONTEMPO, ROBERT T.
BRADY, T. JEFFERSON CUNNINGHAM
III, GARY N. GEISEL, JOHN D. HAWKE,
JR., PATRICK W.E. HODGSON, RICHARD
G. KING, JORGE G. PEREIRA, MELINDA
R. RICH, ROBERT E. SADLER, JR.,
HERBERT L. WASHINGTON, DENIS J.
SALAMONE, MICHAEL W. AZZARA,
VICTORIA H. BRUNI, DONALD O.
QUEST, JOSEPH G. SPONHOLZ,
CORNELIUS E. GOLDING, WILLIAM G.
BARDEL, and SCOTT A. BELAIR,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
Francis J. Murphy, Jr., Jonathan L. Parshall, MURPHY, SPADARO & LANDON, Wilmington, DE;
Steven M. Coren, Benjamin M. Mather, Matthew R. Williams, KAUFFMAN, COREN & RESS, P.C,
Philadelphia, PA.
Counsel for Plaintiffs.
Brian M. Rostocki, Anne M. Steadman, Justin M. Forcier, REED SMITH LLP, Wilmington, DE;
Jonathan K. Youngwood, Janet A. Gochman, Tyler A. Anger, Katherine A. Hardiman, SIMPSON,
THACHER & BARTLETT, New York, NY.
Counsel for Defendants, M&T Bank Corporation, Brent D. Baird, Angela C. Bontempo,
Robert T. Brady, T. Jefferson Cunningham III, Mark J. Czarnecki, Gary N. Geisel, John D.
Hawke, Jr., Patrick W.E. Hodgson, Rene F. Jones, Richard G. King, Jorge G. Pereira, Melinda
R. Rich, Robert E. Sadler Jr., Herbert L. Washington, and Robert G. Wilmers.
1
Kevin R. Shannon, Jonathan A. Choa, Daniel Rusk, POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP,
Wilmington, DE; Tracy Richelle High, Scott A. Foltz, SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP, New York,
NY.
Counsel for Defendants, Hudson City Bancorp Inc., Michael W. Azzara, William G.
Bardel, Scott A. Belair, Victoria H. Bruni, Cornelius E. Golding, Donald O. Quest, Denis J.
Salamone, and Joseph G. Sponholz.
November 1, 2023
Wilmington, Delaware
WALLACH, U.S. Circuit Judge, sitting by designation:
The Court issued its Memorandum Opinion and Order (“Opinion”) on August 28, 2023,
denying Defendants’ Motion to Exclude, and granting-in-part and denying-in-part Plaintiffs’
Motion for Class Certification. D.I. 218. On September 12, 2023, Plaintiffs notified the Court by
email that Defendants filed a Petition with the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit seeking
permission to appeal the Court’s August 28, 2023 Opinion pursuant to Rule 23(f) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Defendants
filed their 23(f) Petition with the Third Circuit on September 11, 2023, Pet. for Permission to
Appeal Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(F) & Fed. R. App. P. 5, Jaroslawicz v. M&T Bank Corp.,
No. 23-8038 (3d Cir. Sept. 11, 2023), D.I. 1-2, and Plaintiffs filed their Response brief with the
Third Circuit on September 22, 2023, Resp. in Opp. to Pet. for Permission to Appeal, Jaroslawicz
v. M&T Bank Corp., No. 23-8038 (3d Cir. Sept. 22, 2023), D.I. 12. On October 27, 2023, Plaintiffs
filed a Letter notifying the Court that the Third Circuit denied Defendants’ Petition. D.I. 220;
Order, Jaroslawicz v. M&T Bank Corp., No. 23-8038 (3d Cir. Oct. 27, 2023), D.I. 15.
The Court “has the inherent power to reconsider prior interlocutory orders” where the Court
“retain[s] jurisdiction over the case.” State Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Cnty. of Camden, 824 F.3d 399, 406
(3d Cir. 2016). However, under some circumstances, the Third Circuit applies a heightened
2
standard to reconsideration of prior orders, requiring either “(1) an intervening change in the
controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court made
its initial decision; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest
injustice.” In re Energy Future Holdings Corp., 904 F.3d 298, 311 (3d Cir. 2018).
Defendants argued in their Petition to the Third Circuit that the August 28, 2023 Opinion
contained clear error of law in that it failed to conduct the rigorous analysis of the evidentiary
record required under Third Circuit precedent in light of the elements Plaintiffs must prove
susceptible to class-wide measurement under a Section 14(a) claim. See Defs.’ Pet., Jaroslawicz
v. M&T Bank Corp., Case No. 23-8038 (3d Cir. Sept. 11, 2023), D.I. 1-2 at 10–11 (quoting In re
Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig., 552 F.3d 305, 318–320 (3d Cir. 2008)). As part of this
argument, Defendants assert that the Opinion “declined to consider” the substance of Defendants’
expert reports by Dr. Denis and Dr. Jiang and to “weigh that testimony” against that of Plaintiffs’
experts under Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance requirement. See id. at 17–18.
Plaintiffs argued in their Response before the Third Circuit that the level of rigorous
analysis proposed by Defendants would impermissibly delve into decisions on the merits that are
not properly decided at the class certification stage. See Pls.’ Resp., Jaroslawicz v. M&T Bank
Corp., No. 23-8038 (3d Cir. Sept. 22, 2023), D.I. 12 at 12–13. Plaintiffs’ argument is grounded
in their interpretation of Supreme Court precedent in Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds,
568 U.S. 455, 459 (2013).
The Court is persuaded by Defendants’ argument in its Petition that the Court clearly erred
in applying the Rule 23 legal standard for commonality and predominance as set forth in Hydrogen
Peroxide by failing to rigorously consider the substance of the competing evidence in its August
28, 2023 Opinion. In Hydrogen Peroxide, the Third Circuit remanded the District Court’s class
3
certification decision for failure to “resolv[e] disputes between the plaintiffs’ and defendants’
experts” regarding whether the elements of the claim were “susceptible to proof at trial through
available evidence common to the class,” in actuality, not merely in theory. See 552 F.3d at 325.
The Third Circuit emphasized that “[w]eighing conflicting expert testimony at the certification
stage is not only permissible; it may be integral to the rigorous analysis Rule 23 demands,” and
that a district court “may not decline to resolve a genuine legal or factual dispute because of
concern for an overlap with the merits.” Id. at 324. “Genuine disputes with respect to the Rule 23
requirements must be resolved, after considering all relevant evidence submitted by the parties.”
Id. The Supreme Court’s Amgen opinion was issued in 2013, but the Third Circuit reaffirmed its
Hydrogen Peroxide “rigorous analysis” standard in 2015. Reyes v. Netdeposit, LLC, 802 F.3d 469,
495–96 (3d Cir. 2015). Despite Amgen’s proscription on delving any further into the merits than
necessary to satisfy the Court that Rule 23(b)(3)’s requirement that “questions of law and fact
predominate” is satisfied, “not that those questions will be answered on the merits in favor of the
class,” 568 U.S. at 459, the Third Circuit has clearly concluded that resolving genuine disputes at
the class certification stage as required by Hydrogen Peroxide does not “bind the ultimate factfinder on the merits” because the resolution “does not preclude a different view at the merits stage
of the case.” 552 F.3d at 324.
While considering the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) and reviewing the competing
evidence by the Parties regarding the loss causation of Plaintiffs’ 14(a) claim, the Court found “a
dispute between experts regarding whether economic loss exists in common class-wide,” but the
Court declined to resolve this dispute because the “conflicting positions of the experts can be
resolved at a latter stage.” D.I. 218 at 45. This clearly deviated from the requirement in Hydrogen
4
Peroxide that the Court weigh the conflicting testimony of the experts and resolve the genuine
disputes inherent in these conflicts before making its predominance determination.
Therefore, the Court hereby finds that its August 28, 2023 Opinion clearly erred as a matter
of law by failing to rigorously analyze the competing evidence in order to resolve the genuine
disputes of the Parties regarding the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3). The Court retains jurisdiction
over this matter, and hereby Orders under its inherent authority to reconsider its prior interlocutory
orders that it will review and amend its August 28, 2023 Opinion consistent with Third Circuit
precedent in Hydrogen Peroxide.
SO ORDERED
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?