In April, we told you about about a decision from the Third Circuit — the court that has given the strictest reading of ascertainability — in which the panel refused to extend the doctrine further and one judge suggested it should be cut back. (See here.)
On Tuesday, we flagged a Seventh Circuit opinion taking a sensibly narrow approach to the doctrine. (See here.)
Today, we see another decision from the Third Circuit holding that ascertainability isn't a problem. In a case alleging an illegal home equity lending scheme involving two banks, one of the banks' arguments against certification was that some of the borrowers who would be included in the class might have declared bankruptcy and in that context might have abandoned the claims pursued on their behalf by the class. The Third Circuit rejected this claim as too speculative to raise an ascertainability problem. An encouraging sign. Read the case, In re Community Bank of Northern Virginia Mortgage Lending Practices Litigation, here.
