Mass Tort Defense : Mass Tort Defense Lawyer & Attorney : Sean P. Wajert : Dechert Law Firm : Products Liability, Class Actions, Pharmaceutical Litigation

The federal judge in the multidistrict litigation concerning the heart drug Digitek has denied class certification in the MDL's six remaining class actions.  In re: Digitek Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1968 (S.D. W. Va.).

Quick history. Digitek® is a trade-name for a drug called digoxin. Digoxin was approved by the FDA to treat various heart problems. At some point, a handful of non-conforming dose tablets were found in a lot of 4.8 million tablets.  Defendant initiated a voluntary Class I nationwide product recall.  A flood of civil actions were instituted in state and federal courts across the country. The plaintiffs claimed a variety of injuries and losses resulting from the recalled Digitek®. In 2008, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation established an MDL proceeding.

The MDL court addressed several overlapping motions for class certification. The class representatives each sought some kind of economic loss class certified pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Two of the class complaints sought only a single-state class. Others sought a nationwide class of all persons residing in the United States who purchased Digitek® pursuant to prescription, during the time period when the recalled Digitek® was manufactured, or sold, who suffered economic losses, including, but not limited to, payments for recalled Digitek®, out-of-pocket expenses for diagnostic testing, medical visits, and/or new prescriptions, as a result of having received recalled Digitek®.

Generally, the plaintiffs focused not on the distinct and highly individualized alleged injuries to the class, but -- as is typical -- on defendants’ alleged misconduct that led to the recall.  In doing so, the plaintiffs tried to paint New Jersey as the nerve center for certification purposes. In fact, they said New Jersey law should control all of the potentially hundreds of thousands of class members’ claims and recoveries throughout the United States. They thus downplayed the individual issues that would arise, including choice of law. They stressed instead that the damages  allegedly suffered by each individual class member were modest and, absent a certified class, millions of consumers would be left without remedy.

The court first addressed the choice of law issues in a nationwide class, as the state in which each claimant was injured has an overriding interest in having its laws applied to redress any wrong done to its citizens.  For example, state consumer protection laws vary considerably, and courts must respect these differences rather than just apply one state's law to sales in other states with different rules.  In re St. Jude Medical, Inc., 425 F.3d 1116, 1120 (8th Cir. 2005).  See generally Kanner, Consumer Class Actions After CAFA, 56 Drake L. Rev. 303, 334 (2008).  Unjust enrichment law varies considerably throughout the United States as well.  Tyler v. Alltel Corp., 265 F.R.D. 415, 422 (E.D. Ark. 2010).  The court reached the same conclusion with the express and implied warranty claims.  See, e.g., Walsh v. Ford Motor Co., 807 F.2d 1000, 1016-17 (D.C. Cir.1986).  The differences impact the class certification factors of typicality, predominance, and manageability.

Putting aside the choice of law issue (that is, assuming a class of New Jersey residents alone and applying only New Jersey law to their claims), the court found that common issues still did not predominate. Violation of the NJ Consumer Fraud Act is subject to proof of a number of
elements, including that plaintiff suffered an ascertainable loss as a result of the unlawful conduct; and a causal relationship between the unlawful practice and the loss sustained.  That is, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act affords a right to monetary relief only if there has been an  ascertainable loss in consequence of the consumer receiving something other than what he bargained for, and losing the benefits of the product which he was led to believe he had purchased.  Plaintiffs' contention here that everyone in the class sustained an ascertainable loss presumes that the drug was worthless. But the drug was enormously beneficial to many patients; most got the right dose. Those patients presumably got their money's worth and suffered no economic injury. And the question whether an individual class member got his or her money's worth is inherently individual. Indeed, it involves very much the same questions as would a claim for money damages for personal injury.

This was seen in the differences between the class representatives: one returned Digitek® following the recall. But he received, in return, replacement digoxin at no charge. Another wanted a co-payment for a doctor visit that he had post-recall. He admitted, though, that the appointment was scheduled pre-recall. If certification were granted, this type of fact-intensive investigation and specific explanation would likely be necessary for all claimants to assure that their claims were compensation worthy.

The individual questions also proliferate to the extent the jury is ultimately required to determine which class members received defective Digitek® and which did not. In other words, it may ultimately be inappropriate, said the court, to treat all the recalled Digitek® as a single “defective” product for purposes of making the determination of whether it was unsafe.  Thus product identification would have individual, as opposed to collective, hallmarks.

Another individual issue was the vast array of individualized damages the representatives were seeking. The plaintiffs tried to sweep this concern aside. But even if not controlling,  individualized damage determinations cut against class certification under Rule 23(b)(3).  Ward v.
Dixie Nat. Life Ins. Co., 595 F.3d 164, 180 (4th Cir. 2010).

Finally, the court confronted the individualized process of sorting out those potential class members who were already fully compensated by the defendants' refund process. Mitigation was  another highly individualized matter.  Certification appropriately denied. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A recurring theme at MassTortDefense has been the risks associated with the plaintiffs' bar growing creativity in the use of state consumer fraud acts to substitute for traditional product liability claims.  In particular, plaintiffs assert that class actions pursuant to state unfair or deceptive trade practices acts ought to be more easily certifiable than traditional personal injury class actions. A recent case in this area is notable not only for its actual holding rejecting a nationwide class, but also for the philosophy expressed by the court on these kinds of proposed class actions. Schnall v. AT&T Wireless Inc., 2010 WL 185943 (Wash. Jan. 21, 2009).

Customers of AT&T Wireless Services filed a nationwide class action alleging the company misled consumers when it billed them for a charge that was not included in advertised monthly rates and was allegedly not described clearly in billing statements. An immediate issue loomed concerning choice of law, which can have a dramatic impact on several aspects of the certification process, including the elements of commonality, predominance, and manageability.  The parties initially disputed whether the choice of law clauses in the customers' contracts were enforceable. The choice of law clauses in this case required customers to litigate asserted violations of their contract in the respective jurisdiction where they signed the contract. (Such jurisdiction is often based on the customer's area code.)  The court concluded that AT&T should not  be forced to face the "enormous cost and complexity presented by a nationwide class action" when they conscionably included choice of law provisions in their customers' contracts and the choice of forum is, in any event, dictated by the consumer.

The choice of law clauses, along with the interpretation of the contract terms, the differences in the materials and information each potential class member received, and the availability of differing affirmative defenses created a predominance of individual issues over common ones.  But even where courts find that a nationwide, state law governed class otherwise meets Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) criteria, the court opined that “the choice-of-law inquiry will ordinarily make or break certification.”  This is because if the laws of 50 jurisdictions apply to plaintiffs' claims, the variations in the laws of the states may swamp any common issues and defeat predominance. (citing Castano, Georgine, and In re American Medical System.)

Of particular interest, the court found that the state of Washington has no interest in seeing contracts executed by AT&T representatives in other states with citizens of those states examined and adjudicated in Washington courts. Certified as a nationwide class action, this case would have presented an unwarranted and unnecessary burden on the state judicial system, all at a large cost to state taxpayers. See R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Engle, 672 So.2d 39, 41 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1996) (“No doubt a tremendous number of retired judges, special masters, and general masters would have to be appointed by the court in order to complete this herculean task within a reasonable period of time--all at a staggering cost to the taxpayers.”)(of course, even the state-wide Engle class was a disastrous mistake by the Florida courts). The court concluded that there is no sound reason to force Washington trial courts to entertain the contract claims of citizens from around the nation. Their state courts are equally as prepared, if not better situated to apply the contract laws of their own states.

That conclusion was bolstered by the observation that nothing in Washington law indicates that Consumer Protection Act claims by nonresidents for acts occurring outside of Washington can even be entertained under the statute. Because the laws of each state are designed to regulate and protect the interest of that state's own residents and citizens, each state has a measurable, and usually predominant, interest in having its own substantive laws apply.  While it is true that Washington has a strong interest in regulating any behavior by Washington businesses which contravenes the CPA, the CPA indicates the legislature's intent to limit its application to deceptive acts that affect the citizens and residents of Washington. To state a CPA claim, a person must show that the unfair or deceptive act affected the people of the state of Washington. This geographic and jurisdictional limitation originates in the CPA's history as a tool used by the State attorney general to protect the citizens of Washington. (as is the situation with many such state statutes.)

The court remanded the case for consideration of a state-wide class claim, but note the better view that where, as here, the plaintiffs allege that their damages were caused by deceptive, misleading, or fraudulent statements or conduct, as a practical matter it is not possible that the damages could be caused by a violation of the Act without proof of reliance on the statements or conduct alleged to violate the statutes. Cf. Group Health Plan, Inc. v. Philip Morris, Inc., 621 N.W.2d 2, 13 (Minn.2001); Hageman v. Twin City Chrysler-Plymouth Inc., 681 F.Supp. 303, 308 (M.D.N.C.1988) (“To prove actual causation, a plaintiff must prove that he or she detrimentally relied on the defendant's deceptive statement or misrepresentation.”); Feitler v. Animation Celection, Inc., 170 Or.App. 702, 13 P.3d 1044, 1047 (2000) (holding causal element of misrepresentation claim requires reliance by the consumer); cf. Siemer v. Assocs. First Capital Corp., 2001 WL 35948712, at *4 (D.Ariz. Mar.30, 2001) (“The injury element of the [state consumer protection statute] claim occurs when the consumer relies on the misrepresentations.”); see generally S. Scheuerman, The Consumer Fraud Class Action: Reining in Abuse by Requiring Plaintiffs to Allege Reliance as an Essential Element, 43 Harv. J. on Leg. 1 (2006).
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Alabama Supreme Court has recently reversed a lower court's certification of a class of third-party payers of health care services who complained about damages allegedly flowing from the recall of a drug from the market.  Wyeth, Inc. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, 2010 WL 152123 (Ala. Jan. 15, 2010).

Defendant Wyeth voluntarily withdrew Duract from the market, notifying the public of its decision to do so through a press release.  As part of the process of withdrawing Duract from the market, Wyeth voluntarily instituted a customer refund program for customers who still had Duract capsules in their possession. The third-party payers sued Wyeth solely on a theory of unjust enrichment, alleging that their payment for the drug had conferred an inappropriate benefit on Wyeth in light of the withdrawal.

After a hearing on the class certification motion, the trial court entered an order certifying a nationwide class of TPPs who paid for the prescription drug Duract that was not used as of the date of its withdrawal from the market.  On appeal, the defendant argued that predominance of common issues had not been established, a requirement of Alabama Rule 23 analogous to FRCP 23 (b)(3).

As in many states, Alabama recognizes that unjust enrichment claims are particularly unsuitable for class treatment. Funliner of Alabama, L.L.C. v. Pickard, 873 So.2d 198, 211 (Ala.2003) (unjust enrichment claims based on allegations of mistake or fraud require an individualized inquiry into the state of mind of each plaintiff).  The trial court distinguished this body of law, finding that this particular enrichment claim was not based on fraud or mistake, but on the somehow different theory that “equity and good conscience” required the defendant to disgorge money that belongs to the plaintiff.

The court observed that Wyeth probably had the better of the argument on this, meaning that the trial court had fashioned on a distinction without a difference.  But the state high court did not need to resolve the unjust enrichment issue under Alabama law, because the plaintiffs sought a nationwide class. Regardless of what Alabama law was, there had been no adequate showing, either to the trial court or to the Supreme Court, that the laws of all (or even most of) the 49 other states would allow unjust enrichment claims to proceed on such a "good conscience" basis somehow distinct from a traditional claim. 

Even a cursory examination showed that variances exist in state common laws of unjust enrichment. The actual definition of unjust enrichment varies from state to state. Some states do not specify the misconduct necessary to proceed, while others require that the misconduct include dishonesty or fraud. See Clay v. American Tobacco Co., 188 F.R.D. 483, 501 (S.D.Ill.1999).

Accordingly, common issues could not predominate.  Certification was vacated.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The court overseeing the MDL concerning panacryl sutures declined last week to certify a proposed national class action. In re Panacryl Sutures Products Liability Cases, 2009 WL 3874347 (E.D.N.C. 11/13/09).

Panacryl Sutures are synthetic, braided, un-dyed, absorbable surgical sutures, designed to remain in the body for 24-36 months after surgery to provide wound support. Various plaintiffs alleged that Panacryl Sutures were defective in that they allegedly caused a high rate of foreign body reactions when used as directed. Plaintiffs alleged also that defendants failed to provide adequate warning of the dangers associated with the devices. Plaintiffs eventually filed a Motion to Certify a National Class Action.

The court first addressed the difficult choice of law issue -- a central, overarching issue in a proposed national class.  The court analyzed the choice of law factors -- interests of interstate comity, the interests underlying the field of tort law, the interests of the parties, the interests of judicial administration, and the competing interests of the various states, and concluded that under New Jersey's choice of law rules it should apply the substantive laws of each class member's home jurisdiction to his or her claims.  Again, a not unusual result, and is one which directly impacts the class certification elements.

Turning to the Rule 23(a) requirements, the court first focused on Rule 23(a)(3), commonly referred to as the “typicality” requirement, which states that the claims and defenses of the class representatives must be typical of the claims of the other class members.  Here, because plaintiffs had not shown that the prospective class representatives' claims can encompass or would take into account the varying substantive laws governing every class member, this element was not met.

Similarly, although the named plaintiffs interests are in some ways similar to the interests of class, the “adequate representation requirement overlaps with the typicality requirement because in the absence of typical claims, the class representative has no incentive to pursue the claims of the other class members.” In re American Med. Sys., 75 F.3d 1069, 1083 (6th Cir., 1996). Plaintiffs here did not meet their burden of showing that the claims of the prospective class representatives would take into account the variations in state law. The court found that therefore the prospective class representatives here did not satisfy Rule 23(a)(4).

Turning to Rule 23(b), the court observed that in class actions governed by the laws of several states, variations in state law will often overwhelm any common issues. See Ward v. Dixie Nat'l. Life Ins. Co., 257 F. App'x 620, 628-29 (4th Cir. 2007), cert denied, 128 S.Ct. 82 (2008), Castano v. Am. Tobacco, 84 F.3d 741 (5th Cir.1996).  To have any shot here, plaintiffs must provide an “extensive analysis” of the laws of the interested jurisdictions showing that variations among the applicable state laws do not pose “insuperable obstacles” to class certification. Walsh v. Ford Motor Co., 807 F.2d 1000, 1017 (D.C.Cir.1986); Gariety v. Grant Thornton, LLP, 368 F.3d 356, 370 (4th Cir.2004). Plaintiffs did not carry this burden.

Moreover, courts have generally founds that common questions of fact do not predominate in medical products liability cases. See In re American Med. Sys., 75 F.3d at 1074 (decertifying class of users of penile implants because “complications ... may be due to a variety of factors, including surgical error, improper use of the device, anatomical incompatibility, infection, device malfunction, or psychological problems.”); Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir.2001) (affirming denial of class certification in an action involving allegedly defective pacemakers). Here, plaintiffs alleged a variety of complications from the product, each of which has potential other causes. And Panacryl Sutures were used in a variety of surgical procedures which require different skills and techniques on the part of the surgeon and present different risks of post-surgical complications. These individual facts would have to be weighed against the alleged defects of Panacryl Sutures in light of the normal background rate of the various post-surgical complications identified by plaintiffs.  So no predominance of common issues.

This in turn led the court to conclude that the difficulties in managing the class proposed here would undermine the theoretical efficiencies that might be obtained through class certification.

Perhaps most importantly to readers of MassTortDefense, plaintiffs' last-ditch effort turned to the "issue class." But, noted the court, Rule 23(c)(4) may not be used to manufacture predominance for the purposes of Rule 23(b)(3). See Castano v. Am. Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734, 745 n.21 (5th Cir.1996) (“A district court cannot manufacture predominance through the nimble use of subdivision (c)(4).”); Peoples v. Wendover Funding, Inc., 179 F.R.D. 492, 501 n.4 (D.Md.1998) (“Rule 23(c)(4) does not permit a federal district court to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(3) by splitting a class action to create predominance.”). Plaintiffs' proposed issues trial plan did not eliminate the necessity of applying the laws of several jurisdictions or the individualized inquiry into whether Panacryl Sutures caused each plaintiff's injuries. And even under plaintiffs' proposed c4 trial plan, the difficulty of applying the laws of several states to the issues of liability and general causation would remain.  Lots of reasons to deny class certification.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Two recent, related federal court opinions illustrate just how unsettled the law of medical monitoring continues to be. Molly Guinan V. A.I. Dupont Hospital For Children, 2009 WL 311113 (E.D.Pa. Feb. 6, 2009); Molly Guinan V. A.I. Dupont Hospital For Children, 2009 WL 307019 (E.D.Pa. Feb. 6, 2009).

Plaintiff is one of several infants who had what the court called a “controversial” procedure to correct a congenital heart defect performed on her by doctors at the A.I. duPont Hospital for Children in Wilmington, Delaware. Cardiologists implanted a covered stent manufactured by NuMed, Inc., a New York corporation that is one of the few developers of pediatric medical devices in the United States. The stent had not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration when implanted. Plaintiff developed serious conditions that were allegedly side effects of the treatment, and there were factual disputes surrounding the treatment plaintiff received when her injuries first began manifesting themselves.

Plaintiffs sued the doctors, hospital, and device maker. Plaintiff articulated two different theories of negligence against the treaters: (1) medical negligence premised on malpractice; and (2) lack of informed consent. (The plaintiff parents claimed they weren’t told anything, and the defendant doctors claimed they told the parents everything.) At bottom, Guinan is another of an increasing number of cases in which what are in reality malpractice cases are being twisted into product liability litigation. Even worse when they get stretched into medical monitoring claims. Multiple summary judgment motions were filed.

The first question was choice of law. Plaintiffs were residents of New Jersey, and the complained-of surgery occurred in Delaware. Plaintiffs sued in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where the child was then being treated for the complications. The aspect of most interest for readers of MassTortDefense is not the malpractice claim, but the medical monitoring claim. The court noted that Pennsylvania and New Jersey recognize medical monitoring as a cause of action. However, there are differences between the laws of the two states that created a conflict. See In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig. (Paoli II), 35 F.3d 717, 787-88 (3d Cir.1994) (identifying potential conflict between Pennsylvania and New Jersey medical monitoring causes of action). In Delaware, the court said that it is not clear whether medical monitoring is an independent tort or whether medical monitoring is simply a remedy. However, while some Delaware decisions have mentioned medical monitoring, Mergenthaler v. Asbestos Corp. of Am., 480 A.2d 647, 651 (Del.1984), the state has never adopted medical monitoring.

The court concluded that Delaware had the greatest interest in seeing its law applied to this action and thus Delaware law would control. Again, Delaware has never recognized medical monitoring as a legally cognizable cause of action. See Mergenthaler, 480 A.2d at 649 (affirming Delaware Superior Court's dismissal of plaintiffs' “claim for the expenses of medically required surveillance ... where there [was] no present physical injury,”). Going through an Erie analysis, the district court predicted that the Delaware Supreme Court would permit a claim for medical monitoring if it were confronted with the facts of this case. Such a prediction seems in direct contrast to 3d Circuit guidance on the issue. E.g., Lexington National Insurance Corp. v. Ranger Insurance Co., 326 F.3d 416, 420 (3d Cir. 2003) (federal court in a diversity case should be reluctant to expand the common law); Werwinski v. Ford Motor Co., 286 F.3d 661, 680 (3d Cir. 2002)(court should opt for the interpretation that restricts liability, rather than expands it).

Several considerations militated in favor of allowing plaintiff to proceed with a medical monitoring claim, said the court. It is undisputed that plaintiff has a Class III medical device in her body. Moreover, it is undisputed that the device did not have premarket approval from the FDA. The FDA, NuMed, and the Institutional hospital defendants have all suggested that plaintiff should receive follow-up care to monitor the stent. “This is compelling, if not conclusive, evidence that medical monitoring is appropriate in this case.”

The court rejected any countervailing policy considerations. See, e.g., Metro-North Commuter R.R. Co. v. Buckley, 521 U.S. 424, 443-44, 117 S.Ct. 2113, 138 L.Ed.2d 560 (1997) (discussing potential for a “ ‘flood’ of less important cases” that could “entail systemic costs without corresponding benefits” if the Supreme Court were to recognize a “full-blown” medical monitoring tort in the context of the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). In sum, considerations of fairness, efficiency, and deterrence favored recognizing a cause of action for medical monitoring, according to the court.

The second, companion opinion’s choice of law analysis included New York, NuMed's state of incorporation. The court found again that Delaware has the greatest interest. And while Delaware has not expressly adopted a medical monitoring claim, for the same reasons as above, the court again predicted that the Delaware Supreme Court would adopt a claim for medical monitoring.

The surprisingly simplistic analysis boils down to bad facts make bad law (or bad predictions of the law). The plaintiff's novel theory that a tort claim for medical monitoring can be applied to medical procedures and devices raises serious policy issues that the court never analyzed. In a case involving HRT, Vitanza v. Wyeth, Inc., 2006 WL 462470 (N.J. Super. Ct. 24 Jan. 2006), claimants sought class certification of a group defined as all persons in New Jersey who had taken the drug Prempro and were not suffering from breast cancer, but who wanted medical monitoring for an alleged increased risk of future cancer. The court dismissed the claim, noting that the state's recognition of medical monitoring came in the unique context of manifest exposure to toxic substances in environmental tort actions, and is to be applied sparingly. The policy reasons applicable to the environmental exposure context (including the difficulty in proving exposure levels and duration, and even the identity of the chemicals at issue) are not present in the prescription drug context where claimants have access to relevant information through the label, pharmacy records, and their prescribing physician. The need to deter polluters, perceived to be present in the toxic tort context, does not apply to life sciences companies. See also Parker v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp., 2008 WL 141628, at *5, n.6 (D.N.J. 14 Jan. 2008)(applying similar reasoning to device context). See generally Sinclair v. Merck & Co., 195 N.J. 51, 948 A.2d 587 (N.J. 2008)(plaintiffs could not maintain an action for medical monitoring in a pharmaceutical product liability action). That the device was not approved yet for this use doesn't change the fact that the FDA has primary responsibility for regulating use of the product.

Moreover, from a doctrinal perspective, medical monitoring requires an underlying tort or tortious conduct. Redland Soccer Club, Inc. v. Department of the Army, 696 A.2d 137, 145 (Pa. 1997); Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 863 P.2d 795, 823 (Cal. 1993) (“as a result of a defendant's tortious conduct”); Meyer v. Fluor Corp., 220 S.W.3d 712, 717 (Mo. 2007); (“consequences of the defendant’s tortious conduct”); Hansen v. Mountain Fuel Supply Co., 858 P.2d 970, 979 (Utah 1993) (“which exposure was caused by the defendant’s negligence”); (“through the tortious conduct of the defendant”); Bower v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 522 S.E.2d 424, 432 (W. Va. 1999); Petito v. A.H. Robins Co., 750 So.2d 103, 106 (Fla. App. 1999) (“caused by the defendant’s negligence”). Here, the negligence claim was dismissed for lack of any viable expert opinion on either liability or damages. There was no viable product defect claim, because of the experimental product. There was no proof of fraud. Bottom line, there was no tort upon which to predicate medical monitoring. Was the court predicting that Delaware would not only adopt the claim, but would do so without this essential element?
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Ninth Circuit recently vacated a district court order certifying a class in litigation against American Honda Motor Co. See Bonlender v. American Honda Motor Co., 2008 WL 2873264 (9th Cir., 7/22/08). The named plaintiffs alleged that certain models of the Honda CR-V and Element were prone to under-hood oil-fed fires, despite a low incidence of such fires.

The plaintiffs had filed four putative statewide class actions, which were among the cases consolidated for pretrial purposes in a multidistrict litigation. In re American Honda Motor Co. Oil Filter Products Liability Litigation (C.D. Cal., No. 2:06-ml-01737).

Honda appealed the district court's order apparently certifying a nationwide class. The Ninth Circuit agreed that the district court abused its discretion by sua sponte certifying a nationwide class without making any findings regarding Rule 23's requirements for class certification, including 23(b)(3)'s requirement that common issues predominate over individualized ones.

Among other things, the district court failed to analyze whether variations in applicable state law defeated Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement. MassTortDefense has posted on the impact of choice of law issues on nationwide classes here and here.

The court further ordered that the case be reassigned to a different district court judge on remand.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In a very disturbing opinion, the Supreme Court of Arkansas rejected General Motor's appeal of a trial court decision to certify a class in a case involving allegedly defective parking brakes in GM vehicles. General Motors Corp. v. Bryant, et al., No. 07-437 (Ark., June 19, 2008). The case was originally brought in 2005 by named plaintiff Boyd Bryant, who alleged that a defectively designed parking brake incurred excessive wear after only 2,500 to 6,000 miles of use. GM allegedly discovered the defect in 2000 and redesigned the part, a spring clip, in 2001. The proposed class included owners of "1500 Series" pickups and utilities that were registered in the U.S. and were originally equipped with an automatic transmission and a PBR 210x30 Drum-in-Hat parking-brake system utilizing the high-force spring clip retainer. Plaintiff alleged that some 4,000,000 pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles sold by General Motors 1999-2002 were equipped with the defectively designed parking brakes. As causes of action, Bryant alleged breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, unjust enrichment, and fraudulent concealment/failure to disclose.

After a hearing, the trial court certified the class. GM appealed.

The Class Rule

Rule 23 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure governs class actions and requires, like the federal rule, numerosity, commonality of questions of law or fact, typicality of the claims or defenses, and adequacy of representation by named parties and their counsel. A class action may be maintained if the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.

The Appeal

General Motors asserted three main points on appeal worthy of our discussion: (1) that extensive legal variations in state laws defeated predominance; (2) that extensive factual variations in the millions of claims defeated predominance; (3) that class certification was not superior.

Choice of Law

General Motors noted that the significant variations among the fifty-one pertinent product defect laws should defeat predominance. [Most courts have accepted this notion.] The trial court had provided four reasons for its finding that the potential application of multiple states’ law did not create predominance concerns. First, the court noted that, unlike the federal rule which requires a rigorous analysis of class certification factors including the impact state law variations may have on predominance, no such rigorous analysis is required in Arkansas. Second, the potential application of many states’ laws was not germane to class certification, but was instead a task for the trial court to undertake later in the course of exercising its autonomy and substantial powers to manage the class action. Third, the trial court found that assessing choice of law was a merits-intensive determination and thus inappropriate at the certification stage. “It would be premature for the Court, at this stage in the case, to make the call on choice of law.” Fourth, if application of multiple states’ laws was eventually required, and it proved too cumbersome or problematic, the circuit court could always consider decertifying the class.

The state Supreme Court found that whether or not the class members’ vehicles contained a defectively designed parking-brake system, and whether or not General Motors concealed that defect, are predominating questions, notwithstanding the various states’ laws that may be required in determining the allegations of breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, a violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment, damages, and restitution. The mere fact that choice of law may be involved in the case of some claimants living in different states is not sufficient in and of itself to warrant a denial of class certification. The Court viewed any potential choice of law determination and application as being similar to a determination of non-predominating individual issues, which would not defeat certification.

On the issue whether an Arkansas court must first conduct a choice of law analysis before certifying a multistate class action, the Court declined to follow the precedent of other jurisdictions, and rejected any requirement of a rigorous inquiry by the trial courts. Instead, it found that the circuit courts have broad discretion in determining whether the requirements for class certification have been met, recognizing the caveat that a class can always be decertified at a later date if necessary. Moreover, the Court believed that requiring the circuit court to conclude at this stage precisely which law should be applied could potentially stray into the merits of the action itself, which should not occur during the certification process.

The concurring opinion noted that this idea extended far past the holdings of prior case law, and potentially foreclosed analysis that could conceivably be required in some cases. A conclusion that choice-of-law issues not related to recovery or defenses will never predominate over common questions of law or fact is impermissibly overbroad.

MassTortDefense would suggest that most courts and commentators do not equate a choice of law analysis with an impermissible examination of the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims. Choice of law is a threshold question that ultimately permits a court to reach the merits of the dispute by establishing the governing legal rules. The selection of the proper law cannot fairly be termed a “merits-intensive determination” Moreover, the trial court need not make any determination about the merits of the causes of actions alleged in order to assess, based on relevant contacts, which state’s law ought to apply to those claims. Nor does the trial court even have to “make the final call” on what law will apply to each and every claim by every class member. It is sufficient for class certification for the trial court to discover that the law of many other states will likely have to be applied to many class members’ claims, and factor that into superiority and manageability of the proposed class.

Factual Variations

General Motors asserted that many factual variations preclude a finding of predominance, including issues of defect, causation, damages (was a parking brake repaired already under warranty and, if not, why not), notice of breach, class member knowledge about a potential parking-brake problem at the time of purchase, reliance, materiality, and affirmative defenses, such as comparative negligence.

The state Supreme Court found that the issue of defect was a predominating common issue. The Court viewed any need for individual inspections and/or the individual use factors merely as individual determinations relating to right to ultimate recovery or damages that pale in comparison to the purportedly common issues surrounding GM’s alleged defectively designed parking brake and alleged cover up to avoid paying warranty claims. (Of course, a proper choice of law analysis would have revealed that the issue of defect is not truly common.)

As is not uncommon, the trial court did not really address the question of how it would conduct a class trial, especially one involving legal standards from different states. But the Supreme Court stated, “We have repeatedly recognized that conducting a trial on the common issue in a representative fashion can achieve judicial efficiency.” The Court expressed general approval for the bifurcated approach to the predominance element by allowing circuit courts to divide a case into two phases: (1) certification for resolution of the preliminary, common issues; and (2) decertification for the resolution of the individual issues. Here, whether the parking-brake system installed in the class members’ vehicles was defective and whether General Motors attempted to conceal any alleged defect were “overarching issues” that could be resolved before the circuit court reaches any of the individualized questions raised by General Motors.

MassTortDefense notes that the courts rarely, if ever, focus on the manageability issues and due process concerns raised by this suggestion – devoid of analysis – that bifurcation of the trial and/or decertification following the “common” issues phase will somehow resolve all concerns. If separate juries are involved – and how can they not be with potentially millions of class members – the results of the first trial must be applied by the later juries. Fault of the defendant found in phase one must be compared with comparative fault of the plaintiff. The defect found in phase one must be shown to cause the injury and damages shown in the individual trial. False statements proven in phase one must be shown to have been relied on in the later phase. But the first trial, the common issues trial, is never tried in such a fashion (with verdict form and jury findings) that will allow that linking up to occur.

What is really happening is the transformation of class certification from a procedural tool for adjudicating large numbers of nearly identical claims into a device that aggregates disparate claims for the sole purpose of leveraging settlement. A grant of class status can put considerable pressure on the defendant to settle, even when the plaintiff’s probability of success on the merits is slight. Blair v. Equifax Check Servs., Inc., 181 F.3d 832, 834 (7th Cir. 1999); see also In re Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Inc., 51 F.3d 1293, 1298 (7th Cir. 1995) (companies facing millions of dollars in potential liability “may not wish to roll the dice. That is putting it mildly.”). Certifying a class without knowing whether it satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 misuses a procedural device to create settlement pressure where none should exist.

Superiority

General Motors contended that the superior method of handling a claim that particular  vehicles are defective is by petition to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The Court observed that the superiority requirement is satisfied if class certification is the more efficient way of handling the case, and it is fair to both sides. In determining whether class-action status is the superior method for adjudication of a matter, it may be necessary for the circuit court to evaluate the manageability of the class. The court assumed that opt outs and summary dispositions would shrink the class, and at the same time, that the proposed class of approximately 4,000,000 members makes it at least likely that without a class action, numerous meritorious claims might go unaddressed. [What happened to the hard and fast rule not to consider the merits?] While not the sole basis for certifying the class, the smallness of the individual claims is another factor to be considered in deciding superiority.

In any event, NHTSA twice rejected petitions dealing with the allegations made in the instant case, so resolution by that agency cannot be superior to a class action when the agency has made such a rejection, observed the Court. Moreover, the rule was not intended to weigh the superiority of a class action against possible administrative relief. The superiority requirement was intended to refer to the preferability of adjudicating claims of multiple-parties in one judicial proceeding.

MassTortDefense would suggest that the repeated references to the trial court’s ability to later decertify the class smacks of the improper, rejected, concept of conditional certification – a practice that has been soundly rejected in recent years by state and federal courts and is now prohibited under both the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure and the federal rules on which they are modeled. After considerable time and effort is expended, courts are reluctant to decertify. Here, for example, GM presented the court with a thorough analysis of conflicts of laws regarding the state-law fraud claims, breach of warranty, applicable statutes of limitations, and unjust enrichment. It seems unlikely that the trial court (after its certification was affirmed) will ever seriously revisit this issue in the context of a new predominance determination. If the court’s approach were correct, class certification would be a meaningless exercise since courts would not address the most difficult and important class certification-related questions – i.e., whether a class trial is fair or feasible – until long after certification. 

MassTortDefense wonders, along with amicus the Chamber of Commerce, if Arkansas is likely become the latest “magnet” jurisdiction for the plaintiffs’ bar, imposing huge costs on companies that do business in the state and placing an unnecessary strain on Arkansas courts by forcing them to devote substantial resources to managing large-scale litigation matters that have only a minimal connection to Arkansas consumers.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks