Connection lost
Server error
Richard Kline v. Coldwell, Banker & Co., Realtors Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The court denied class action certification for a massive antitrust lawsuit against thousands of real estate brokers, finding that individual questions of liability and damages overwhelmed common issues, rendering the case unmanageable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
Legal Significance: This case established a key precedent for denying class certification in large-scale antitrust cases where proof of individual participation and injury is required, emphasizing the predominance and manageability requirements of Rule 23(b)(3).
Richard Kline v. Coldwell, Banker & Co., Realtors Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Plaintiffs Richard and Margo Kline, on behalf of a proposed class of approximately 400,000 sellers of residential real estate in Los Angeles County, filed an antitrust suit against the Los Angeles Realty Board and a proposed defendant class of over 2,000 member brokers. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants conspired to fix brokerage commissions in violation of the Sherman Act by distributing a recommended fee schedule. The plaintiffs sought $250 million in actual damages, to be trebled to $750 million. The defendant Board admitted to distributing the schedule but noted it was explicitly advisory and not binding on members. The district court certified both a plaintiff and a defendant class under Rule 23, finding that the central issue of a conspiracy presented common questions of law and fact that predominated over individual issues. The defendants brought an interlocutory appeal challenging the class certification order.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: May a massive antitrust lawsuit be maintained as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) where proof of each defendant’s liability and each plaintiff’s injury requires individualized evidence?
No. The court reversed the class certification, holding that individual questions regarding Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fu
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
May a massive antitrust lawsuit be maintained as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) where proof of each defendant’s liability and each plaintiff’s injury requires individualized evidence?
Conclusion
This decision significantly limits the availability of the class action device in Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut ali
Legal Rule
For a class action to be certified under Rule 23(b)(3), the court Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit am
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis focused on the two primary requirements of Rule 23(b)(3): Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamc
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The Ninth Circuit reversed class certification in an antitrust price-fixing suit