The Third Circuit recently reaffirmed its liberal standard for permitting a Rule 23(f) appeal from a district court’s order granting or denying class certification in Laudato v. EQT Corp., 23 F.4th 256 (3d Cir. 2022), providing an important reminder of the availability of interlocutory appellate review of a class certification order where either side believes the decision was incorrect. Contrary to “more limited approaches” other circuits have adopted, the Third Circuit stated it exercises “very broad discretion” in permitting Rule 23(f) appeals. Laudato provides a case in point of why this liberal approach is important.

In Laudato, a putative class action filed in the Western District of Pennsylvania, plaintiff sought class certification on behalf of himself and a group of other landowners whose land was near EQT’s storage fields, alleging that defendant had been storing natural gas and utilizing the landowners’ underground pore space without providing them due compensation. On Laudato’s motion for class certification, the district court rejected plaintiff’s proposed class definition, finding it raised significant problems, but nevertheless agreed with plaintiff that “it would seem in everyone’s best interests to resolve this case on a class basis,” and held that “class certification will be granted, with instructions.” Asbury v. EQT Corp., 2:18-cv-1005-CB, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186451, at *4 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 29, 2021) (emphasis in original). The district court did so over the opposition of EQT, which had argued that a class could not be certified. The district court directed the parties to meet and confer “regarding the establishment of an appropriate class definition.” Id. at *9. Notwithstanding that the order failed to, among other things, define the class, the district court made clear that class certification “will be granted.” Id. at *4. The district court’s order stated only in a footnote that it found that “the Rule 23 prerequisites have been met” (id. at *n.6), citing to plaintiff’s briefing and stating the Rule’s required elements for class certification without any analysis. The defendant then filed a petition seeking interlocutory review under Rule 23(f).