In Cline v. Sunoco, Inc. (R&M), 2025 WL 3199871 (10th Cir. Nov. 17, 2025), the Tenth Circuit adopted the majority view that “administrative feasibility” for identifying class members is not an independent requirement for certifying a class under Federal Rule 23.  The ascertainability standard endorsed by the court requires only that the class be defined clearly and objectively, without being based on subjective criteria such as a person’s state of mind.

Cline involved Oklahoma’s Production Revenue Standards Act (PRSA), which entitles owners of rights in oil wells to 12% annual interest on late royalty payments.  The trial court certified a class of persons entitled to royalties who received late payments and issued a judgment awarding damages to class members following a bench trial.

On appeal, Sunoco argued (among other things) that certification was inappropriate because the class was not sufficiently ascertainable.  Sunoco asserted that administrative feasibility was lacking because not all of the class members with interests in the oil wells could be identified from Sunoco’s records. 

The Tenth Circuit brought itself into line with the majority view, reflected in decisions of the Second, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits, that “administrative feasibility” in being able to identify class members is not a separate and independent requirement for class certification.  The court found that ascertainability under Rule 23 requires “reasonable – but not perfect – accuracy” in identifying class members.  Administrative feasibility has a bearing on ascertainability, but it is not dispositive.  The court was unpersuaded by Sunoco’s arguments casting doubt on the reliability of its own records concerning the identity of persons entitled to royalty payments, given that Sunoco had relied on those records to make prior payments.

While Sunoco’s challenge to certification was unsuccessful, the court separately found that punitive damages were unavailable under Oklahoma law because the asserted statutory rights arose out of contracts.  The court accordingly vacated the $75 million in punitive damages the trial judge had awarded, leaving in place $28 million in actual damages and interest.