No. 25-625

Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, a Japanese Corporation, et al. v. Painters and Allied Trades District Council 82 Health Care Fund, et al.

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2025-12-02
Status: Pending
Type: Paid
Amici (2) Experienced Counsel
Tags: circuit-split class-certification damages representative-evidence rico rule-23
Key Terms:
ClassAction JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: N/A
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether a federal court may certify a class action with uninjured members and rely on representative evidence to prove individualized reliance

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

This case involves a multibillion-dollar civil RICO class action covering tens of thousands of third-party payors that reimbursed millions of prescriptions for hundreds of thousands of pa tients over a ten-year period. As both the district court and the court of appeals admitted, an unknown number of class members were never harm ed—by the class’s own telling, at least thousands of them. Nevertheless, the Ninth Circuit blessed this sprawling Rule 23(b)(3) class, reaffirming its outlier view that classes with an untold number of unharmed members may be certified, even if the plaintiffs offer no plan for figuring out which class members are pr operly before the court. In so holding, the court entrenched an acknowledged circuit split on which this Court has twice granted certiorari but has yet to resolve. The Ninth Circuit then made matters even worse, permitting the use of representative evidence to paper over the fundamentally individualized nature of the class claims in a holding that de fies this Court’s teachings and splits with decisions of other circuits that faithfully follow them. The questions presented are: 1. Whether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when some members of the proposed class lack any compensable injury in fact. 2. Whether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when a class relies on representative evidence to try to prove an individualized reliance issue that is a necessary element of each plaintiff’s claim.

Docket Entries

2026-02-02
Brief of Painters & Allied Trades District Council 82 Health Care Fund, et al. in opposition submitted.
2026-02-02
Brief of respondents Painters & Allied Trades District Council 82 Health Care Fund, et al. in opposition filed.
2026-01-02
Brief amici curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. filed.
2025-12-15
Amicus brief of Washington Legal Foundation submitted.
2025-12-15
Brief amicus curiae of Washington Legal Foundation filed.
2025-12-05
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including February 2, 2026.
2025-12-04
Motion of Painters & Allied Trades District Council 82 Health Care Fund, et al. for an extension of time submitted.
2025-12-04
Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 2, 2026 to February 2, 2026, submitted to The Clerk.
2025-11-26
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 2, 2026)
2025-10-27
Application (25A472) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until December 6, 2025.
2025-10-22
Application (25A472) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from November 6, 2025 to December 6, 2025, submitted to Justice Kagan.

Attorneys

Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America
Ashley C. ParrishKing & Spalding, Amicus
Ashley C. ParrishKing & Spalding, Amicus
Painters & Allied Trades District Council 82 Health Care Fund, et al.
Robert Brent WisnerWisner Baum, LLP, Respondent
Robert Brent WisnerWisner Baum, LLP, Respondent
Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al.
Paul D. ClementClement & Murphy, PLLC, Petitioner
Paul D. ClementClement & Murphy, PLLC, Petitioner
Washington Legal Foundation
Cory L. AndrewsWashington Legal Foundation, Amicus
Cory L. AndrewsWashington Legal Foundation, Amicus