Mass Tort Defense : Mass Tort Defense Lawyer & Attorney : Sean P. Wajert : Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP : Products Liability, Class Actions, Pharmaceutical Litigation

Earlier this week I spoke at a CLE seminar on the topic of class actions, and part of my focus was the recent Supreme Court decision in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013).  Since that decision, the Court has granted cert, vacated, and remanded for reconsideration two class action cases involving allegations of defects in washing machines:  Whirlpool Corp. v. Glazer, No. 12-322 (U.S. 4/1/13); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Butler, No. 12-1067 (U.S. June 3, 2013).

In Glazer, the lower court had certified a class of purchasers of washing machines despite admitted variations in laundry habits; differences in remedial efforts; variation in service performed on the machines.  And despite the fact that a reported 97% of the class had never complained of a problem or suffered the alleged defect. 678 F.3d 409 (6th Cir. 2012).

In Butler, the lower court had granted certification of two classes of more than 100,000 members in six states who purchased 20 different models of machines; again many never had the problem alleged.

So where does Comcast, ostensibly an antitrust case, fit here?  The Court reaffirmed that a class action is an exception to the rule of individual adjudication. And to get there, Rule 23 is not merely a pleading standard. Just as Dukes made clear that a rigorous analysis of the Rule 23(a) prerequisites, such as commonality, is required, the same principles apply to Rule 23(b) elements, such as predominance. And a court cannot refuse to consider class certification arguments just because those arguments also might be relevant to the merits of plaintiffs' claims.

In Glazer the district court made noises about some of the defense arguments on certification going to the merits, and the Sixth Circuit had about two sentences on predominance -- suggesting the absence of the rigorous analysis required.

In Butler, 702 F.3d 359 (7th Cir. 2012), the Seventh Circuit suggested predominance was met because it would be more efficient to resolve the question whether the machines were defective in a single class trial; predominance is a question of efficiency.  That would seem to run afoul of Rule 23, which incorporates efficiency in the notion of superiority, but not as a definition of or synonym for predominance. Indeed the Advisory Committee notes suggest that efficiencies flow only when predominance is present. Prior Court opinions instruct that predominance implies a notion of cohesion.  And the Butler court's treatment of the need for individual damages trials seems flatly inconsistent with the Comcast Court's statements on the need for proof on a class-wide basis.

 Two to keep an eye on.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Supreme Court weighed back in on the issues of class certification last month in Comcast v. Behrend, No. 11-864 (U.S. 3/27/13). Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia stated that the class had been improperly certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)'s predominance prong, in an opinion that bears careful scrutiny for our readers, but probably did not cover as much ground as some thought it would when cert was granted (no further guidance on Daubert at the class stage).

Plaintiffs brought a class action antitrust suit, under Rule 23(b)(3), claiming Comcast subscribers in the Philadelphia area were harmed because of a specific Comcast strategy that allegedly lessened competition and would lead to higher prices. Comcast allegedly “clusters” their cable television operations within a particular region by swapping their systems outside the region for competitor systems inside the region.  Plaintiffs offered several theories as to why this alleged approach harmed them: it allowed Comcast to withhold local sports programming from its competitors, resulting in decreased market penetration by direct broadcast satellite providers; it allegedly reduced the level of competition from “over-builders,” companies that build competing cable networks in areas where an incumbent cable company already operates; it reduced the level of “benchmark” competition on which cable customers rely to compare prices; and it allegedly increased Comcast’s bargaining power relative to content providers.

The District Court ruled that plaintiffs had to show that the “antitrust impact” of the violation could be proved at trial through evidence common to the class and that the damages were measurable on a class-wide basis through a “common methodology.” The trial court then certified the class, but accepted only one of the four proposed theories of antitrust impact. The Third Circuit affirmed, noting again its artificial separation of class and merits issues:  we "have not reached the stage of determining on the merits whether the methodology is a just and reasonable inference or speculative." The court of appeals concluded that Comcast's attacks on the merits of the methodology had "no place in the class certification inquiry.”

Of course class certification is a procedural step, not the occasion to decide which side has the winning case, but in recent years the Supreme Court has been telling the lower courts that the line between merits and certification is not such a bright line.  The Third Circuit ran afoul of this admonition when it refused to entertain arguments against the damages model that bore on the propriety of class certification simply because they might also be pertinent to the merits determination. A certifying court may have to probe behind the pleadings before coming to rest on the certification question; certification is proper only if the trial court is satisfied, after a rigorous analysis, that Rule 23’s prerequisites have been satisfied. Such an analysis will frequently overlap with the merits of the plaintiff ’s underlying claim because a class determination generally involves considerations that are enmeshed in the factual and legal issues comprising the plaintiff ’s cause of action. A District Court cannot refuse to evaluate evidence at the class certification stage just because that same evidence relates to the merits of the claims. In so doing, the Court made clear that the rigorous analysis discussed in Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011), applies to both the Rule 23(a) factors and the Rule 23(b) prerequisites. 

The figures that plaintiffs' expert used were calculated assuming the validity of all four theories of antitrust impact originally proposed, and did not delineate the differences between the allegedly supra-competitive prices prices attributable to over-builder deterrence, and the prices caused by other economic factors.  To ignore that would reduce the Rule 23(b)(3) predominance requirement to a nullity. The questions of individual damages calculations here would inevitably overwhelm questions common to the class in this antitrust case; the plaintiffs' model fell far short of establishing that damages were capable of measurement on a class-wide basis. Thus, the Court made clear that plaintiffs must offer a method sufficient to calculate damages on a class-wide basis in Rule 23(b)(3) class actions or risk losing certification.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A federal court recently denied class certification in the MDL coordinating claims over an alleged defect in hybrid vehicles’ braking systems.  See IN RE: TOYOTA MOTOR CORP. HYBRID BRAKE MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES and PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, No.: SAML 10-2172-CJC (C.D. Cal., 1/09/13). The basis of the ruling, that a substantial majority of class members never suffered an actual injury caused by the defect, will be of interest to our readers.

Plaintiffs alleged that a defect in the anti-lock brake system of their vehicles causes the ABS to improperly engage when it is not needed, resulting in increased stopping time and distance.  In February 2010, Toyota voluntarily recalled the vehicles and offered to install a software update to remedy the braking defect. Toyota asserted the software update accomplished its intended purpose, and remedied the defect, but plaintiffs claimed that the braking defect was not cured.

Plaintiffs brought five separate class actions in February 2010, later consolidated into an MDL, alleging Toyota had fraudulently induced them to purchase their hybrids by concealing the alleged defect in the braking system. Plaintiffs then moved to certify a class based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), consisting of individuals who purchased or leased the Class Vehicles in California or Texas prior to February 8, 2010. Toyota opposed certification of any class, contending, among other things, that Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3).
The court concluded Toyota was correct.

Although there were serious questions as to whether plaintiffs could satisfy the commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements of Rule 23(a), the court concluded it need not  address those questions because plaintiffs clearly could not satisfy the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3). It is beyond dispute that the critical issue involved in this case was whether there was a manifest defect in the ABS that caused an actual injury to each member of the proposed class. Unless plaintiffs could demonstrate such a manifest defect resulting in actual injury, they could not succeed on any of their five product liability claims. The resolution of this crucial issue, however, could not be accomplished through common or generalized proof as is required to maintain a class action. It must be done by an individualized and particularized inquiry for each member of the proposed class.

Most problematic for plaintiffs, said the court, was that they sought to certify a class in which the
substantial majority of class members never suffered an actual injury that was caused by a manifest defect in the ABS. Toyota presented substantial evidence that the updated software installed in the Class Vehicles as part of the national recall rectified any actual or perceived problem with the braking performance of the ABS. Plaintiffs presented no evidence to contradict Toyota’s evidence in this regard.  Indeed, plaintiffs did not even retain an expert to render an opinion on the safety and performance of the ABS postrecall. Plaintiffs instead argued that they suffered an actual injury because they would not have paid that same purchase price for each of their vehicles had they known of the problem with the ABS. Plaintiffs’ benefit-of-the-bargain argument was insufficient as a matter of law. Merely offering a creative damages theory does not establish the actual injury that is required to prevail on their product liability claims. And in this case, the class reps and, apparently, the majority of the purported class they seek to represent, received exactly what they paid for — that is a vehicle with a safe and operable ABS. After the updated software was installed in their vehicles, the class reps admitted they had no problem with
the braking performance of their vehicles. They were able to apply their brakes and stop their vehicles without incident. They never sold their vehicles. They never incurred any expense as a result of any problem with the ABS in their vehicles. Simply stated, the majority of the class members suffered no actual injury, let alone a common one resulting from the same manifest defect.

Moreover, since the number of members of the proposed class that allegedly suffered an injury was tiny, the proposal to certify a class of thousands of owners of the Class Vehicles, then determine which few suffered an actual injury that resulted from a manifest defect in the ABS, would render the class action device nothing more than a façade for conducting a small number of highly individualized, fact-intensive cases. In re Cannon Cameras, 237 F.R.D. 357, 360 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). Such a class action is certainly not a superior, fair, and efficient method for resolving the parties’ controversy.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Last week, the Third Circuit reversed a trial court's certification of a class of consumer who alleged their vehicles were equipped with allegedly defective run-flat tires. Marcus v. BMW of North America LLC, Nos. 11-1192, 11-1193 (3d Cir.,  8/7/12).

As their name suggests, run-flat tires  can “run” while “flat.” Even if an RFT suffers a total and abrupt loss of air pressure from a puncture or other road damage, the vehicle it is on remains operable.  Plaintiff alleged he experienced four “flat” tires during his three-year lease of a BMW equipped with this tire technology.  In each case, the RFT worked as intended. That is, even though the tire lost air pressure, Marcus was able to drive his car to a BMW dealer to have the tire replaced. He nonetheless sued BMW and the tire maker Bridgestone, asserting consumer fraud, breach of warranty, and breach of contract claims. in part because the tires needed to be replaced rather than repaired.  The District Court certified plaintiff’s suit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) as an opt-out class action brought on behalf of all purchasers and lessees of certain model-year BMWs equipped with Bridgestone RFTs sold or leased in New Jersey with tires that “have gone flat and been replaced.” Defendants appealed.

The requirements set out in Rule 23 are not mere pleading rules. The party seeking certification bears the burden of establishing each element of Rule 23 by a preponderance of the evidence. The Third Circuit has repeatedly emphasized that actual, not presumed, conformance with Rule 23 requirements is essential. Newton v. Merril Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 259 F.3d 154, 167 (3d Cir. 2001) (quoting Gen. Tel. Co. of the Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 160 (1982)).  To determine whether there is actual conformance with Rule 23, a district court must conduct a “rigorous analysis” of the evidence and arguments put forth. When doing so, the court cannot be bashful. It must resolve all factual or legal disputes relevant to class certification, even if they overlap with the merits — including disputes touching on elements of the cause of action.

The term "game-changer" is often misused and overused as a buzz word in the business world by those who want sound trendy, but the Third Circuit here correctly recognized that, as a practical matter, the certification decision is "typically a game-changer, often the whole ballgame," for the parties and counsel. That is, denying or granting class certification is often the defining moment in class actions. 

The Third Circuit first addressed the issue of numerosity.  When a plaintiff attempts to certify both a nationwide class and a state-specific subclass, as plaintiff did here, evidence that is sufficient to establish numerosity with respect to the nationwide class is not necessarily sufficient to establish numerosity with respect to the state-specific subclass. See Vega v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 564 F.3d 1256, 1266-68 (11th Cir. 2009) (plaintiff could not simply rely on the nationwide presence of T-Mobile to satisfy the numerosity requirement without Florida-specific evidence).  The District Court found that the New Jersey class met the numerosity requirement because “it is common sense" that there will probably be at least 40 class members in New Jersey. The court of appeals noted that this may be a bet worth making, but it cannot support a finding of numerosity sufficient for Rule 23(a)(1);  a district court must make a factual determination, based on the preponderance of the evidence, that Rule 23’s requirements have been met. Mere speculation is insufficient.

The second major issue was predominance. A plaintiff must demonstrate that the elements of the legal claim capable of proof at trial through evidence that is common to the class predominate over the issues that must be litigated through proof individual to its members. The court’s  obligation to consider all relevant evidence and arguments on a motion for class certification  extends to expert testimony on the common or individual nature of issues and proof, whether offered by a party seeking class certification or by a party opposing it. Expert opinion with respect to class certification, like any matter relevant to a Rule 23 requirement, calls for rigorous analysis. Weighing conflicting expert testimony at the certification stage is not only permissible, it may be integral to the rigorous analysis Rule 23 demands.  

Here, the District Court then found plaintiff could show, without resort to individual proofs, that the alleged common defect (RFTs go "flat" too easily) caused the class members’ damages. But that causation finding was an abuse of discretion.  Central to plaintiff's claim was what caused class members’ tires to go flat and need replacement. Causation was pivotal to each of Marcus’s claims. The District Court failed to analyze an undisputed, fundamental point: any tire can “go flat” for myriad reasons. Even “defective” tires can go flat for reasons completely unrelated to their defects. Critically, to determine why a particular class member’s Bridgestone RFT had “gone flat and been replaced” requires an individual examination of that class member’s tire. But these individual inquiries are incompatible with Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance requirement.

For example, of the two tires plaintiff presented for inspection in his lawsuit, one went “flat” and was replaced because he ran over a jagged chunk of metal, and the other because he ran over a sharp object that tore and gouged the tire and damaged the sidewall. All the experts agreed that the two tires could not have been repaired and that any tire (run-flat or conventional, defective or not) would also have been damaged under the circumstances. Thus, even if Marcus could prove that Bridgestone RFTs suffer from common, class-wide defects, those defects did not cause the damage he suffered for these two tires: the need to replace them. In this sense, Marcus was no different than a class member who, seconds after buying his car, pulled off the dealership lot and ran over a bed of nails -- neither could claim a “defect” caused his tires to go flat and need replacement.

One other key aspect of the opinion for our readers: the court of appeals also raised an issue should plaintiffs attempt to get a different class certified on remand.  Many courts have recognized that an essential prerequisite of a class action, at least with respect to actions under Rule 23(b)(3), is that the class must be currently and readily ascertainable based on objective criteria. See, e.g., John v. Nat. Sec. Fire & Cas. Co., 501 F.3d 443, 445 (5th Cir. 2007).  If class members are impossible to identify without extensive and individualized fact-finding or “mini-trials,” then a class action is inappropriate. Some courts have held that where nothing in company databases shows or could show whether individuals should be included in the proposed class, the class definition fails. See Clavell v. Midland Funding LLC, No. 10-3593, 2011 WL 2462046, at *4 (E.D. Pa. June 21, 2011); Sadler v. Midland Credit Mgmt, Inc., No.06-C-5045, 2008 WL 2692274, at *5 (N.D. Ill. July 3, 2008); In re Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Wage & Hour Litig., No. C 06-2069 SBA, 2008 WL 413749, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2008); Deitz v. Comcast Corp., No. C 06-06352 WHA, 2007 WL 2015440, at *8 (N.D. Cal. July 11, 2007).

The ascertainability requirement serves several important objectives. First, it eliminates serious administrative burdens that are incongruous with the efficiencies expected in a class action by insisting on the easy identification of class members.  Second, it protects absent class members by facilitating the “best notice practicable” under Rule 23(c)(2) in a Rule 23(b)(3) action. See Manual for Complex Litigation, § 21.222 (4th ed. 2004). Third, it protects defendants by ensuring that those persons who will be bound by the final judgment are clearly identifiable. See Xavier v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 787 F. Supp. 2d 1075, 1089 (N.D. Cal. 2011). Ascertainability is needed for properly enforcing the preclusive effect of final judgment. The class definition must be clear in its applicability so that it will be clear later whose rights are merged into the judgment; that is, who gets the benefit of any relief and who gets the burden of any loss. If the definition is not clear in its applicability, then satellite litigation will be invited over who was in the class in the first place.

If plaintiff attempts to certify a class on remand, the District Court would have to resolve the critical issue of whether the defendants’ records can ascertain class members and, if not, whether there is a reliable, administratively feasible alternative. The Third Circuit cautioned against approving a method that would amount to no more than ascertaining by potential class members’ say so. For example, simply having potential class members submit affidavits that their Bridgestone RFTs have gone flat and been replaced may not be “proper or just.”  Defendants would be able to cross-examine an individual plaintiff at trial about whether and why his tires “have gone flat and been replaced.” So, forcing defendants to simply accept as true absent persons’ declarations that they are members of the class, without further indicia of reliability, "would have serious due process implications."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A federal court recently rejected plaintiffs' class certification bid in a suit against Ford Motor Co. relating to diesel engines in some vehicles. Corder v. Ford Motor Co., No. 3:05-CV-00016 (W.D. Ky., 7/25/12).

Corder brought an action against Ford for allegedly violating the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act (“KCPA”). Corder alleged that the diesel engines installed in model year 2003 F-Series Super Duty Trucks and Excursions were "highly problematic."  Plaintiff then allegedly purchased a model year 2004 Ford F-250 Super Duty Truck with what he claimed was a “2003 engine” that did not have the improvements that were in the “2004 engine” According to plaintiff, non-disclosure of installation of the “2003 engine” in his model year 2004 truck was an unfair, false, misleading, or deceptive act within the meaning of the KCPA.

Ford noted that it makes running changes to its vehicles, including the engines, throughout the year. Purchasers of 2004 model year trucks built prior to October of 2003 received multiple slightly different engines, and all of those engines were improved over engines installed on most 2003 vehicles.

Following initial discovery, Ford moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion, finding that Corder had not shown that Ford’s actions were false, misleading, or deceptive within the meaning of the KCPA, nor had Corder shown that he suffered an “ascertainable loss,” as is required to maintain a private action under the KCPA. The Sixth Circuit disagreed. Corder v. Ford Motor Co., 285 F. App’x 226 (6th Cir. 2008).  Upon remand, Corder filed a motion to certify a national class, but the district court found that a national class was not viable because the laws of each of the states in which the putative class members purchased their vehicles would have to be applied, which would lead to significant problems of individualized proof and manageability.

Plaintiff then amended, seeking to represent a class of only Kentucky residents. The court concluded that Rule 23(b)(3) was still not met. In order to meet the demand of Rule 23(b)(3) that common issues predominate, a plaintiff must show that the issues in the class action that are subject to generalized proof, and thus applicable to the class as a whole, predominate over those issues that are subject only to individualized proof. Beattie v. CenturyTel, Inc., 511 F.3d 554, 564 (6th Cir. 2007). The predominance requirement in Rule 23(b)(3) guards against certifying class actions that could overwhelm or confuse a jury or compromise a party’s defense. Thus,  certification is not appropriate unless it is determinable from the outset that the individual issues can be considered in a manageable, time-efficient, and fair manner.

For Ford to be liable for damages under the KCPA, plaintiff had to establish that: (1) the person purchased or leased a Ford vehicle in question primarily for personal, family, or household purposes; (2) the person suffered an ascertainable loss; and (3) the loss was a result of an unfair, false, misleading or deceptive act or practice.

In this case, the need to determine the primary purpose for each customer’s purchase required an individualized inquiry that would overwhelm any alleged common issues. The trucks
at issue were not the type of product about which it may be inferred that all, or even the vast majority, were purchased primarily for a personal, family, or household purpose.  Indeed there was evidence suggesting that a large number of the purchasers of the trucks at issue bought them primarily for commercial use. And the Ford Design Analysis Engineer stated that it was “designed for heavy-duty use, including commercial use, and was too large to fit in many home garages."  The court noted that the burden on a class certification motion belongs to the plaintiff, In re Whirlpool Corp. Front-Loading Washer Prods. Liab. Litig., 678 F.3d 409, 416 (6th Cir. 2012), but Corder offered no evidence controverting the suggestion that numerous customers purchased their trucks either partially or wholly for commercial purposes. Litigation of that issue would  require individualized inquiries into numerous class members. Clearly, the question of why any particular customer purchased the pickup truck was not something that can be resolved on a classwide basis.

Moreover, this element was a subjective one by its terms, focusing on the reasons underlying a
particular person’s reasons for purchasing a truck. Indeed, the statute did not restrict claims
to those purchasers whose only purpose was personal, family, or household related, but required
only that such a purpose be the primary one. That a purchaser can have a commercial purpose for the purchase of a truck, so long as that is only a secondary purpose, made the individualized inquiries and their resolution by a jury all the more detailed and complicated.

So far, a solid but not particularly uncommon analysis.  What is especially worthwhile for readers of MassTortDefense is that  plaintiff, as is growing more common, suggested that the court could simply use questionnaires, claim forms, or “judicial notice” to resolve the primary use inquiry. But none of those suggestions allowed for Ford to do what Ford was entitled to do: litigate the issue before a jury with respect to each customer for whom the relevant facts and inferences to be drawn therefrom are disputed. The requirement that a person have purchased a product primarily for personal, family, or household use prior to a finding of liability under KRS § 367.220 is an explicit element of the statute. Ford, of course, had every right to demand a full litigation of that element of the cause of action, and for each putative class member no less. The Rules Enabling Act forbids interpreting the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Rule 23, to “abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2072(b). Accordingly, a court could not certify a class action under the premise that Ford would not be entitled to fully litigate that statutory element in front of a jury, at least for those class members where the facts and inferences to be drawn therefrom are disputed. See Wal-Mart v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. at 2561 (“Because the Rules Enabling Act forbids interpreting Rule 23 to ‘abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right,’ a class cannot be certified on the premise that Wal-Mart will not be entitled to litigate its statutory defenses to individual claims”).

While plaintiff also argued that an “appropriate trial plan” would allow for resolution of the necessary individualized inquiries, he did not provide any detailed suggestion as to what sort of appropriate trial plan would allow for the resolution of the potentially numerous individualized inquiries without overwhelming the trial and the jury. Simply put, plaintiff could not meet his burden of showing that class certification was appropriate by making conclusory statements about questionnaires, judicial notice, or an appropriate trial plan.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A New York federal court rejected a class certification motion recently in a suit over Scholastic Corp.'s alleged use of photographs in publications for one of its reading skills programs. See Palmer Kane LLC v. Scholastic Corp., No.1:11-cv-07456 (S.D.N.Y. 7/16/12).

It's a copyright case, which is not one of our typical areas of focus, but the class issues are illustrative more broadly.  As an aside, your humble blogger recalls fondly when, as a wee lad, the monthly Scholastic flyer was distributed in grade school, and there was an opportunity to pick out a new book to read. Defendant Scholastic has, since its founding in 1920, been a designer and developer of educational publications and services.

Plaintiff brought this purported class action alleging that Scholastic committed copyright infringement on images it allegedly used in certain of its books by printing more copies of the books than was allowed under the licenses it held, or by publishing the books prior to obtaining a license. The "READ 180" program at issue had multiple components geared toward students, teachers and school administrators: printed workbooks, instructional software, electronic books, paperback books and videos. The printed components of the materials that made up the READ 180 program contained thousands of illustrations and photographs. 

Plaintiffs sought certification of a class allegedly impacted by excessive or unauthorized uses of the images. In response, defendant offered evidence of Scholastic's complex process for obtaining licenses for images used in READ 180.

In evaluating a motion for class certification, the district court is required to make a definitive assessment of Rule 23 requirements, notwithstanding their overlap with merits issues, and must resolve material factual disputes relevant to each Rule 23 requirement.  What matters to class certification is not the raising of common questions--even in droves--but, rather the capacity of a class-wide proceeding to generate common answers apt to drive the resolution of the litigation. Dissimilarities within the proposed class are what have the real potential to impede the generation of common answers. E.g., Salon FAD v. L'Oreal USA, Inc., No. 10 Civ. 5063, 2011 WL 4089902, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2011). 

Here, plaintiff could not show that a class can be certified under the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b) (3). The court determined that the core of plaintiff's allegations was that Scholastic exceeded the scope of licenses that it negotiated with agents of rights holders or rights holders themselves. Because in order to answer whether Scholastic in fact held a license to use those images would necessarily involve, and depend upon, inquiries into a multitude of individual  relationships and interactions (between Scholastic and the rights owner; between Scholastic and the licensing agent; between the rights owner and the licensing agent), common questions of law or fact did not predominate over individual questions and a class action would not fairly and efficiently adjudicate these issues.

For example, as to some images, defendant entered into what Scholastic called "Preferred Vendor Agreements" that set out terms of the two parties' licensing arrangement with respect to future images.  But these agreements were far from uniform, differing as to usage rights, print run limitations, invoicing practices and the reuse of images --  all key issues.  Moreover, the Preferred Vendor Agreements were a product of negotiations between different personnel at Scholastic and the photo houses. Any inquiry into their terms would a review of representations that were individualized and could vary case by case.

Other agreements, not covered by a PVA, also raised individual issues. Each license obtained by Scholastic may have had different limitations placed on it by its rights holder and/or licensing agent--making an inquiry into the nature of the alleged infringements difficult (and maybe impossible) to resolve on a class-wide basis. The individualized inquiries necessary to determine the breadth of the licenses granted by each individual rights holder, often as a product of individual negotiation processes, was yet another factor militating against granting class certification.
 

Thus, plaintiff failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that it could prove its claims on a class-wide scale, by referring to generalized proof. Accordingly, its motion to certify a class was denied.

The key here for our readers is when the facts involving plaintiffs' interactions with defendant appear complicated, use that complexity to full advantage on the issues of commonality and predominance.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A federal court last week denied class certification in a lawsuit over insect parts allegedly found in baby formula, recognizing that the claims raised multiple individual issues. Brandner v. Abbott Laboratories, et al., No. 2:10-cv-03242 (E.D. La. 1/23/12).

Plaintiff filed this suit in connection with Abbott’s September, 2010 recall of Similac brand infant formula because of the concern that insect parts may have been observed in a batch of finished product.  Brandner asserted that she purchased, and her child consumed, Similac that was
part of the product recall.  Plaintiff contended that during this period her child suffered alleged gastrointestinal problems, which symptoms required numerous visits to a physician, and that she allegedly experienced severe emotional distress upon learning she had fed her child infant formula containing beetles and beetle larvae.

Plaintiff's Rule 23 (b)(2) class allegations were dismissed, but plaintiff then sought monetary damages and moved to certify a class on her products liability and redhibition claims under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). Defendant opposed this certification motion on the grounds that she failed to satisfy the commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation requirements of Rule 23(a), as well as the predominance and superiority requirements of Rule 23(b)(3). The court's focus was on the predominance and superiority issues, and found no need to reach all the other questions.

Predominance of individual issues under the product liability claim-

Louisiana law requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that the product was unreasonably dangerous when it left the manufacturer’s control. Whether each class member actually purchased contaminated Similac was subject to individualized, not collective proof. Second, each putative class member would need to establish that Abbott’s actions were a proximate cause of his or her injury. Jefferson v. Lead Indus. Ass’n, Inc., 106 F.3d 1245, 1247 (5th Cir. 1997).  The plaintiff's cause of action here would require proof of medical causation, which has two components, general causation, which establishes that a substance has the capability of causing the injury or disorder in humans, and specific causation, which focuses upon whether the substance caused a particular injury to a particular individual. E.g., Ridgeway v. Pfizer, Inc.,, 2010 WL 1729187, at *2 (E.D. La. Apr. 27, 2010).  Even assuming general causation, proving specific causation would require a determination of an individual’s family and medical history; age; gender; diet; the timing of ingestion of the product; whether that individual suffered an injury, when the injury occurred, the type of injury suffered, and the number of occurrences of injury; and more. See In re Vioxx Prods. Liab. Litig., 239 F.R.D. 450, 459 (E.D. La. 2006)(citing In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 208 F.R.D. 625, 631-32 (W.D. Wash. 2002)).

This highly individualized inquiry led the court to conclude that issues common to the class did
not predominate.   Interestingly, the court went on to note that all plaintiffs who claimed emotional distress (an issue that plaintiff contended was common to the class) would have to establish not only the distress but also the attendant damages. The damages issue required a determination  whether plaintiffs sought medical treatment, psychiatric treatment, the degree to which plaintiffs manifested generalized fear, and the severity of plaintiffs’ emotional distress. See Howard v. Union Carbide Corp., 897 So.2d 768, 774 (La. App. 2005). Because the determination of whether each member suffered emotional distress turned on a highly individualized assessment, questions of fact regarding individual members predominated over common issues of fact.  While the individual nature of damages alone does not necessarily preclude class certification, class treatment may not be suitable where the calculation of damages is not susceptible to a mathematical or formulaic calculation. Establishing emotional damages would entail the exact type of “mini-trials” the courts have cautioned against. Indeed, the very nature of these damages, compensating plaintiffs for emotional and other intangible injuries, necessarily implicated the subjective differences of each plaintiff’s circumstances; they were an individual, not class-wide, remedy.  See Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., 151 F.3d 402, 417 (5th Cir. 1998). See also In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 401 Fed. Appx. 884, 887 (5th Cir. 2010) (class certification not appropriate when individualized issues, such as the nature and extent of a class member’s damages, will predominate).

Superiority- 

The court also found that plaintiff made no showing of how she would try these claims on a class-wide basis. She thus failed to demonstrate how she would overcome the manageability problems posed by claims that require such disparate proof. Accordingly, she had not satisfied the requirement that a class action be superior to other available methods of adjudicating the controversy.

Other claims-

Plaintiff's redhibition claims also could not be certified as a class because common issues did not predominate, and a class action was not a superior mechanism for trying these claims. Plaintiff argued, in essence, that defendant admitted defect in recalling lots of the product.  But the court found that the recall notice was far from an admission that every unit contained a
redhibitory defect. Indeed, the press release actually stated that there was only a “remote possibility” of contamination in the products subject to recall. Plaintiff could not show through common proof that each class member purchased a defective product.  Plaintiff's expert did not convince the court otherwise. The overall rate of contamination in tested samples was only 0.16%.  The expert admitted there was no scientific way to evaluate contamination in units that were recalled but not tested.  And even if the product was considered “adulterated” per the FDCA, a food product is adulterated, inter alia, if it has been prepared, packed, or held under insanitary
conditions whereby it may have become contaminated with filth, or whereby it may have been rendered injurious to health. So a product can be “adulterated” under the FDCA without being contaminated or defective.

Class certification denied under (b)(3).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Ninth Circuit issued an interesting class action decision applying several of the key aspects of the recent Supreme Court decision in Wal–Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes.  See Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 2011 WL 4336668  (9th Cir. 2011).

The case was a gender discrimination claim; while we don't focus on labor law here at MassTortDefense, the Rule 23 guidance is instructive generally for many of our class action cases.

The district court certified the class, which alleged gender discrimination, and Costco appealed. Let's focus on three instructive aspects of the Ninth Circuit's analysis.

The trial court had found the commonality prerequisite, but the court of appeals noted that it is insufficient for plaintiffs to merely allege a common question. See Wal–Mart, 131 S.Ct. at 2551–52. Instead, they must pose a question that “will produce a common answer to the crucial question.” Id. at 2552; see also id. at 2551 (“What matters to class certification is not the raising of common ‘questions' ... but, rather the capacity of a classwide proceeding to generate common answers apt to drive the resolution of the litigation.”). In other words, plaintiffs must have a common question that will connect many individual promotional decisions to their claim for class relief.

In thinking about common issues, some courts have remained reluctant to delve into the merits of the claims. The Ninth Circuit reminds us that it is not correct to say a district court may consider the merits to the extent that they overlap with class certification issues; rather, a district court must consider the merits if they overlap with the Rule 23(a) requirements. Here, the defendant challenged the admissibility of the plaintiffs' experts' opinions, and the district court seemed to have confused the Daubert standard with the distinct “rigorous analysis” standard to be applied when analyzing commonality. Instead of judging the persuasiveness of the evidence presented about commonality, the district court seemed to end its analysis of the plaintiffs' evidence after determining such evidence was merely admissible. To the extent the district court limited its analysis of whether there was commonality to a determination of whether plaintiffs' evidence on that point was admissible, it did so in error.

(Specifically, while plaintiffs alleged nationwide discrimination, their proof seemed to show great variation in defendant alleged conduct by region. Plaintiffs would face an exceedingly difficult challenge in proving that there were questions of fact and law common to the proposed nationwide class, but the district court failed to engage in a “rigorous analysis” on this point.)

Next is typicality. Costco argued that plaintiffs could not satisfy the typicality requirement because each of the named plaintiffs' respective discrimination claims were subject to unique defenses. The district court rejected this argument and held that, as a general matter, individualized defenses do not defeat typicality. This was also error. A named plaintiff's motion for class certification should not be granted if there is a danger that absent class members will suffer if their representative is preoccupied with defenses unique to him or her. A unique background or factual situation may require a named plaintiff to prepare to meet defenses that are not typical of the defenses which may be raised against other members of the proposed class. 

Third, the court examined the effort of plaintiffs to get damages in a 23(b)(2) class. The prior thinking was that in Rule 23(b)(2) cases, monetary damage requests might be allowable if they were merely incidental to the litigation, but "this standard has been called into doubt by the Supreme Court" in Wal–Mart, 131 S.Ct. at 2560. The Supreme Court rejected the “predominance” test for determining whether monetary damages may be included in a 23(b)(2) class certification. Id. at 2559. Instead of considering the amount of the damages sought or the subjective intent of the class members seeking relief to determine if injunctive relief “predominates,” the first relevant inquiry, said the Ninth Circuit, is what procedural safeguards are required by the Due Process Clause for the type of relief sought. Id. at 2557–58.

While rule 23(b)(3) arguably expanded the breadth of possible class actions, it also expanded the procedural protections afforded the class. Unlike classes certified under Rule 23(b)(1) or (b)(2), a(b)(3) class is not mandatory. Instead, putative class members are afforded the right to be notified of the action and to opt out of the class. The absence of these protections in a class action predominantly for monetary damages violates due process. And the Wal–Mart court opined: “We fail to see why the Rule should be read to nullify these protections whenever a plaintiff class, at its option, combines its monetary claims with a request—even a ‘predominating request’—for an injunction.” 131 S.Ct. at 2559.

Even beyond the due process issue, the Supreme Court also stated that claims for individualized relief (like the backpay at issue here) do not satisfy Rule 23(b)(2), because the “key to the (b)(2) class is the indivisible nature of the injunctive or declaratory remedy warranted."  Id. at 2557.  Rule 23(b)(2) does not authorize class certification when each class member would be entitled to an individualized award of monetary damages. Here, the district court erred, therefore, by focusing on evidence of plaintiffs' subjective intent, instead of on whether the monetary relief could be granted absent individualized determinations of each class member's eligibility.

The court of appeals vacated the district court's order finding that Plaintiffs had satisfied Rule 23(b)(2) and remand for the district court to apply the legal standard confirmed in Wal–Mart.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks