Long-lasting Lipstick Class Kissed Off

A federal court has rejected a proposed class of plaintiffs who alleged that they purchased deceptively labeled lipstick and foundation, in part because of an inability to show class-wide damages. See Algarin v. Maybelline, LLC,  No. 12-03000 (S.D. Cal., 5/12/14).

Maybelline manufactures, markets, sells, and distributes SuperStay 24HR Lipcolor, a line of lipcolors, and SuperStay 24HR Makeup, a line of skin foundations, Plaintiffs alleged these products were marketed to provide "all day comfort,” that withstands “heat, sweat, and humidity,” but allegedly do not. Plaintiffs alleged they paid a price premium because of the company's claims. On behalf of a proposed California class of consumers who bought the SuperStay products, they asserted claims under the California Unfair Competition Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

In assessing the motion for class certification, the court found that there were issues with the proposed class definition. Plaintiffs defined the class as: “[a]ll California consumers who purchased SuperStay 24HR Lipcolor and/or SuperStay 24HR Makeup for personal use."  Given the number of differences between the two products, including but not limited to, pricing differences, claims differences, labeling differences, and ultimately merits differences, the Court questioned whether creating sub-classes would be needed. Beyond that, though not explicitly stated in Rule 23, courts have held that the class must be adequately defined and clearly ascertainable before a class action may proceed. See Chavez v. Blue Sky Natural Beverage Co., 268 F.R.D. 365, 376 (N.D. Cal. 2010) .  A class is sufficiently defined and ascertainable if, among other things, it is administratively feasible for the court to determine whether a particular individual is a member. See O’Connor v. Boeing N. American, Inc., 184 F.R.D. 311, 319 (C.D. Cal. 1998).   It must be administratively feasible to determine whether a particular person is a class member as an identifiable class exists if its members can be ascertained by reference to objective criteria, but not if membership is contingent on a prospective member’s state of mind. While here the class definition seemed ascertainable in the sense that class membership might be determined based on an objective criterion -- whether members purchased either the SuperStay lipcolor of the SuperStay makeup --  Plaintiffs failed to provide a reliable method of determining who the actual members of the class were. So it was not ascertainable in the sense that members could actually ever be determined. Plaintiffs failed to show how it was “administratively feasibile" to determine whether a particular person was a class member. The court correctly noted that this inquiry overlaps with the “manageability” prong of Rule 23(b)(3).

Specifically, Maybelline argued that purchasers were unlikely to have documentary proof of purchase of products like these years later, and Maybelline does not maintain a purchaser list or other identifying method. In such a situation, the Court and the parties would necessarily rely on class members to self-identify. There are a number of cases that stand for the proposition that where a court has no way to verify if a purchaser is actually a class member, class certification may be improper. See e.g., Red, 2012 WL 8019257, at *4;  Hodes v. Int’l Foods, 2009 WL 2424214, at
*4 (C.D. Cal. July 23, 2009). Here, the relevant purchase was not a memorable “big ticket” item, but rather small-ticket items that cost around $10.00; it was extremely unlikely the average purchaser would even remember she purchased the specific SuperStay products versus a competitor product.

The court also observed that expert evidence shows that materiality and reliance varied from consumer to consumer, such that these elements were not an issue subject to common proof. Under the claims alleged, a representation is considered material if it induced the consumer to alter his position to his detriment. If the issue of materiality or reliance is a matter that would vary from consumer to consumer, the issue is not subject to common proof, and the action is properly not certified as a class action. Maybelline introduced evidence of who the reasonable consumer in the target audience was and what drives her in making purchasing decisions. With cosmetics such as the ones at issue here, customers can readily discern how well they work and whether they lived up to the claimed representations. Accordingly, repeat purchasers can not be considered injured in the manner proposed by Plaintiffs. A repeat purchase indicates satisfaction. The evidence suggested that duration was not the only motivating factor in making the purchases; actual duration expectations varied widely among purchasers; and very few consumers actually read the package the way plaintiffs' counsel did and thus could have been “injured” in the manner alleged by Plaintiffs.

This undermined both the commonality and the typicality prerequisites. Based upon the evidence presented, the named Plaintiffs’ reliance on the alleged misrepresentations was not typical of other class members.

Under Rule 23(b)(2), the court concluded that the injunctive relief requested by the plaintiffs wasn't appropriate for the class as a whole. Class members who bought the cosmetics and used them became well aware of the realities of the products, and wouldn't benefit from the relief sought.

Under Rule 23(b)(3), the Plaintiffs sought individual monetized relief that would require an assessment of each class member's claim based on purchase history.  Given the number of individual purchasing inquiries, as well as the evidence showing materiality and reliance varied from consumer to consumer, it was evident that common issues did not predominate.  As is standard, Plaintiffs proposed the “price premium” method of determining class-wide damages, contending  that their damage theory was “simple."  It was not obvious to the Court, however, that the alleged 24 hour/no transfer claim commanded the alleged premium of $1.00-$3.00. Indeed, that was pure speculation on the part of Plaintiffs. Pricing could have been equally impacted by a higher quality of ingredients, the selection of colors offered, or the unique costs Maybelline expended in the research and development of these products. Plaintiffs’ method of using comparable products from other sellers is inconsistent with the law. To establish that any difference in price was attributed  to the alleged misrepresentation, the Court needed to compare a product, exactly the same but without the challenged marketing claim. Such a task was nearly impossible as no two products are completely identical.

Moreover, Maybelline did not sell retail and does not set retail prices. Establishing a higher price for a comparable product would be difficult where prices in the retail market differ and are affected by the nature and location of the outlet in which they are sold and/or the use of promotions and coupons. The Court could not simply assume that all retailers throughout California purchase and sell the products at one price. 

Finally, the existence of an economic injury was also not a common question as many purchasers were satisfied with the products. Economic injury is not a common question when many purchasers find the class products were worth the amount paid and fully satisfied.

Class motion denied.

TCPA Class Rejected on Defendant's Motion

Readers may know that there is a fair amount of litigation alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. What's interesting about this proposed TCPA class action, Ryan v. Jersey Mike's Franchise Sys., No. 3:13-cv-01427-BEN-JLB (3/28/14), is that the decision comes on defendants' motion to deny class certification, an aggressive and perhaps seldom used preemptive motion. 

A court is required to determine whether or not to certify the action as a class action at an early "practicable time." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(l)(A). Rule 23 is not a mere pleading standard, and a party seeking class certification must affirmatively demonstrate his or her compliance with the Rule.  Wal-MartStores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2551 (2011). It may be necessary for a court to probe behind the pleadings before coming to rest on the certification question. In making the class certification determination, a court is required to engage in "rigorous analysis." Id. That analysis frequently entails "some overlap with the merits of the plaintiffs underlying claim." Id.

Several courts have approved the use of preemptive motions to deny class certification before a plaintiff has filed a motion to certify a class. E.g., Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans, 571 F.3d 935, 941 (9th Cir. 2009). Such motions may be appropriately granted before discovery has been completed, as district courts have broad discretion to control the class certification process and have the discretion to determine whether discovery will be permitted. A party seeking class certification is not always entitled to discovery on the class certification issue.  See Doninger v. Pac Nw. Bell, Inc., 564 F.2d 1304, 1313 (9th Cir. 1977). A motion for class certification can be properly denied without discovery where plaintiffs cannot make a prima facie showing of Rule 23's prerequisites or where discovery measures are not likely to produce persuasive information substantiating class action allegations. 

Plaintiff here alleged that defendants transmitted unauthorized bulk spam text messages to the cellular phones of unwilling customers in order to promote their shop. Plaintiff alleged that these text message were aggravating and required consumers to pay their cell phone providers to not receive the spam messages. Plaintiff claimed that defendants assembled lists of consumer cell phone numbers, "without any authorization" to use the numbers.  Plaintiff alleged that the defendants then sent massive amounts of spam commercial text message advertisements, using auto-dialers or robo-callers.  Plaintiff further alleged that the texts were sent to mobile phone users with whom the defendants had "no prior business relationship."

The court described that the defendant store had a customer loyalty program known as the "Shore Points" in which it issued customers loyalty cards that they could use to earn and redeem "loyalty points" for free products. Each card had a unique bar code number and was linked in a database to a telephone number provided by the customer when the card is issued. Defendants claimed the only numbers in their records were numbers provided by their customers. Defendants explained that messages are only sent to members of the loyalty program who gave their cell phone numbers to the stores.  Plaintiff admits that he was given a loyalty card on one of his visits to the store, and he got a test message advertising the store, and offered free chips and a drink with the purchase of any sub.

Readers know that the typicality requirement is to assure that the interest of the named representative aligns with interests of the class.  E.g.,  Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976F.2d 497, 508 (9th Cir. 1992). In determining whether the typicality requirement is satisfied, a court determines whether other members have the same or similar injury, whether the action is based on conduct which is not unique to the named plaintiffs, and whether other class members have been injured by the same course of conduct.

Here, plaintiff said he did not remember ever giving a phone number,  but was "not 100% sure. I suppose it's possible." He argued that not remembering interactions with fast food attendants made him a "more typical consumer, not less typical."

On defendants' motion, the court concluded that class certification was inappropriate in this case; plaintiff was fatally inconsistent and uncertain about critical issues relating to the possible consent to receive text messages. These consent issues were critical to any theory of recovery, including the TCPA. While plaintiff stated under oath in his deposition that he did not provide his phone number, it was clear he did not remember his conversation with the cashier. His inconsistency and uncertainty rendered class action treatment inappropriate.  Plaintiff could not represent a class of individuals who did not give out their phone numbers because he was unsure whether he did not give the defendants his phone number.

While it was quite possible that most people would not remember such details, that did not make plaintiff an appropriate representative of a class to assert the rights of others.  Discovery would not allow him to resolve the uncertainty regarding his own experience. An inability to remember key details may be typical, but the typicality requirement of a class action lawsuit demands more.  Plaintiff's conflicting accounts of critical facts that would determine what kinds of claims he could bring meant that the necessary alignment of interests is impossible. Motion granted, no class.

 

Federal Court Rejects Copycat Class Action

 A California federal court declined to certify a putative class of consumers in a suit accusing defendant of marketing defective dryers. See  Martin Murray v. Sears Roebuck and Co. et al., No. 4:09-cv-05744 (N.D. Cal.).

In 2009, Murray filed a putative class action on behalf of all California consumers who purchased the same Kenmore-brand dryer that he allegedly did. In his complaint, he alleged that Sears and Electrolux, the dryer’s manufacturer, had marketed the dryer to consumers by promoting its “stainless steel” drum without disclosing that the drum’s front -- the portion of the drum that allegedly rusted -- was actually made of a mild steel, which is allegedly more susceptible to corrosion and chipping. Based on this alleged omission, Murray asserted claims against defendants for unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and violations of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and Unfair Competition Law (UCL). Defendants removed the action to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act.

The original complaint was a "copycat" of allegations in a class action in the 7th Circuit, the infamous Thorogood matter. After amendment, the court concluded that the new allegations were sufficiently different from those in Thorogood, such that plaintiff was not collaterally estopped from
asserting his claims on a class-wide basis.

Plaintiffs sought certification under Rule 23 subsections (b)(2) and (b)(3). Rule 23(b)(2) applies where the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.  Rule 23(b)(3) permits certification where common questions of
law and fact predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and class resolution is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the
controversy. In deciding the class issue, the court must conduct a rigorous analysis, which may require it to probe behind the pleadings before coming to rest on the certification question. Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2551 (2011).  Frequently that rigorous analysis will entail some overlap with the merits of the plaintiff’s underlying claim. "That cannot be helped.” Dukes, 131 S. Ct. at  2551.

The court's analysis focused on the commonality and typicality requirements of Rule 23(a). The court concluded that Murray failed to present any evidence that defendants represented on a class-wide basis that the dryer’s drum front was made of stainless steel (rather than mild steel) and that this feature would prevent its user’s clothes from developing rust stains or tears. None of the sales managers testified that Sears marketed the drums as preventing rust stains or tearing. One
product manager testified that she believed the stainless steel was marketed as an aesthetic feature. A third Sears employee simply referred Murray to Sears’s marketing team when asked about the company’s advertising practices. None of this testimony supported Murray’s claim that California consumers, as a class, were likely to be confused by Sears’s marketing claims.

While some of Sears’s promotional materials stated that the Kenmore-brand dryers feature an “exclusive, all stainless-steel drum that provides lasting durability,” this, said the court, hardly qualified as a material misrepresentation.  And Murray’s account of his personal experience at a single Sears store did not suggest that Sears made any representation about the Kenmore-brand dryers on a class-wide basis. Nor did it suggest that Sears ever made such a representation about the Frigidaire-brand dryers nor that Electrolux ever made similar  representations about either brand of dryers. If anything, his individual isolated (and uncorroborated) incident of allegedly deceptive marketing suggests that Murray’s claims, were highly “idiosyncratic” and, thus, not amenable to class-wide proof.  In addition, Murray’s failure to identify any other class  member whose clothes were stained by rust only reaffirmed that his claimed injury here was unique. He also had not offered any evidence to suggest that other California consumers’ clothes were ever damaged by Kenmore or Frigidaire dryers. 

Accordingly, because he had not identified any common questions of fact or law that pertain to every class member, Murray failed to meet the commonality prerequisite.

Rule 23(a)(3) requires that the claims or defenses of the representative parties be typical of the claims or defenses of the class. Murray failed to satisfy the typicality requirement here for the same reasons he failed to satisfy the commonality requirement: specifically, he had not presented evidence of any class-wide misrepresentations or class-wide injury. As explained above, the only evidence here that defendants ever specifically represented that their dryers’ stainless steel drums protect clothes from rust stains came from Murray’s own isolated experience at one Sears store. Murray did not present any evidence to suggest that either defendant ever made the same
representations to other California consumers. Nor did he present any evidence to suggest that other California consumers suffered the same problems,

Also, he testified that the loose drum was most likely what caused his clothes to become exposed to the rust in the first place because the rust had only developed on the exterior portion of the drum front -- a part of the dryer that would not normally come into contact with any clothes. This admission -- that other problems with Murray’s dryer may have contributed to the rust stains he experienced -- left the named plaintiff vulnerable to fact-based defenses that could not be raised against other class members.  Similarly, because Murray purchased his dryer in September 2001, and did not file until November 2009, the potential statute of limitations issue made his claim not typical (as well as affecting adequacy). 

Another Plaintiff Fails to Obtain Class Certification for Claims About Products Not Actually Purchased

We've posted before about the curious phenomenon of plaintiffs suing about the labeling on a product they never even purchased.  Recently class certification was denied in yet another case alleging false labeling on a product the named plaintiff did not buy  See Major v. Ocean Spray Cranberries Inc., No. 12-03067 (N.D. Cal., 6/10/13). We flag this case for our readers, because of the court's emphasis on the Rule 23(a) element of typicality instead of the equally applicable notion of standing.

Plaintiff alleged that she purchased several of defendant’s products in California. Her Complaint stated that Plaintiff purchased various “Ocean Spray juices and drinks” that were allegedly improperly labeled "No Sugar Added," or were bearing improper nutrient content claims, or had misrepresentations that the products were free from artificial colors, flavors or preservatives.  She alleged the usual causes of action, including violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. (counts 1–3); violation of the False Advertising Law (“FAL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500 et seq., (counts 4–5); violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et seq. (count 6); restitution based on unjust enrichment or quasi-contract (count 7); and breach of warranty (8).

She sought certification of a class of similar purchasers. Rule 23(a)(3) requires that a named plaintiff’s claims be typical of those that would be advanced by the proposed class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). The test for Rule 23(a) typicality in the Ninth Circuit is whether other members have the same or similar injury, whether the action is based on conduct which is not unique to the named plaintiffs, and whether other class members have been injured by the same course of conduct. See Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC, 617 F.3d 1168, 1175 (9th Cir. 2010); Ries v. Arizona Beverages USA LLC, 287 F.R.D. 523, 539 (N.D. Cal. 2012).

In the context of cases involving several products at issue —like this one— district courts have held that the typicality requirement has not been met where the named plaintiff purchased a different product than that purchased by unnamed, absent class, plaintiffs. Wiener, 255 F.R.D. at 666; see also Gonzalez v. Proctor & Gamble Co., 247 F.R.D. 616 (S.D. Cal. 2007); Lewis Tree Serv., Inc. v. Lucent Techs. Inc., 211 F.R.D. 228 (S.D.N.Y.2002); Kaczmarek v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 186 F.R.D. 307, 313 (S.D.N.Y. 1999).

With that standard in mind, here the court found that plaintiff, the proposed class representative, had not met her burden of showing that her claims are typical of those of the proposed class members pursuant to Rule 23(a)(3).  The primary reason behind the court’s determination that the typicality requirement had not been met is that plaintiff’s proposed classes were so broad and indefinite that they encompassed products that she herself did not purchase. See Wiener, 255 F.R.D. at 666. In her deposition, plaintiff asserted that she purchased five of the defendants’ products. But the putative class definitions that plaintiff wanted the court to certify would have included a whole host of other products that plaintiff had nothing to do with. For example, the putative class would include any of defendant’s products “represented to contain no artificial colors, flavors or preservatives but which contained artificial colors, flavors or preservatives.”  The putative class also included entire lines of products; as an example, any product from the “Sparkling” line of products. However, in both of these examples, plaintiff failed to make an allegation that she purchased all of such products, all the products in these product lines. As such, the claims of the unnamed plaintiffs who purchased products plaintiff herself did not buy were not fairly encompassed by the named plaintiff’s claims.

The second basis of the finding that plaintiff's claims failed to meet the Rule 23(a) typicality requirement is the fact that the labels and nutrition claims on each of the products at issue was unique to that product itself. For example, plaintiff based her mislabeling causes of action with regard to the Diet Sparkling Pomegranate Blueberry drink product, in part, on the claims made on the specific label of this specific drink product -- language that included specific claims about blueberries, applicable only to drinks containing blueberries. The evidence needed to prove plaintiff’s claim that the Diet Sparkling Pomegranate Blueberry drink contained false or misleading labeling was not probative of the claims of unnamed class members who purchased products within the “Sparkling” line that did not contain blueberries. 

Certification denied.

 

Class Denied in Credit Card Claim

A federal court in California last week denied certification of  a proposed class of Nike store customers. Gormley v. Nike Inc., No. C-11-893-SI, (N.D. Cal., 1/28/13).  The issue, interestingly, was typicality.

Plaintiffs in these consolidated cases brought putative class actions on behalf of themselves
and a class of consumers, alleging that defendants violated the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971, by requesting and recording the ZIP codes of credit card customers through Nike’s “Information Capture Policy.”  Plaintiffs alleged that Nike implemented and maintained a policy whereby its cashiers were trained to follow the “EPOC manual” under which cashiers were prompted with a pop-up box on their screen to enter the customer’s ZIP code. The screen on the sales register that allowed the cashier to input a customer’s ZIP code did not appear until after the credit card was authorized and the receipt was printing. If a customer declined to provide a ZIP
code, Nike’s cashiers entered any alphanumeric combination.  In support of class certification, plaintiffs submitted evidence that, during the class period, Nike’s ZIP code request policy was allegedly implemented at every Nike retail store in California, and ZIP codes were requested and recorded during approximately 561,179 transactions.

The plaintiffs sought to represent a class of all those consumers who Nike requested a ZIP code from in conjunction with a credit card transaction in a retail store in California from February 24, 2010, to February 24, 2011.  Defendants raised a number of arguments against class certification, including noting that the proposed class definition appeared to be "fail-safe."  But the issue that the court focused on was typicality. Rule 23(a)(3) requires the named plaintiffs to show that their claims are typical of those of the class. To satisfy this requirement, the named plaintiffs must be members of the class and must possess the same interest and suffer the same injury as the class members. Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 156 (1982). The typicality requirement may be satisfied when each class member’s claim arises from the same course of events, and each class member makes similar legal arguments to prove the defendant’s liability. Rodriguez v. Hayes, 591 F.3d 1105, 1124 (9th Cir. 2010).

Although in the past many courts have found the typicality requirement is not stringent, the court here followed the recent trend, and held that plaintiffs had not demonstrated that they were typical of the class they seek to represent. The consolidated complaint challenged Nike’s “Information Capture Policy,” and yet all of the named plaintiffs testified that their experiences were not fully consistent with that policy. For example, some testified that cashiers asked them for their ZIP codes before providing them with their receipts and merchandise. However, under the Nike policy that is the subject of this lawsuit, cashiers were prompted to request ZIP codes after giving customers their receipts and merchandise.   The court read the governing statute as prohibiting merchants from requesting personal identification information as a condition precedent to accepting payment by a credit card,  Thus, as the legality of Nike’s policy depends on whether a consumer would perceive the store’s request for a ZIP code as a condition of the use of a credit card, the timing of that request is clearly relevant.

Accordingly, the Court found that the named plaintiffs were not typical of the class they seek to
represent, and denied class certification on this ground.

Class Certification Denied in Plant Explosion Case

A Massachusetts federal court last week declined to certify a class in a suit against chemical company Ashland Inc., in a dispute over a factory explosion. Riva et al. v. Ashland Inc., No. 1:09-cv-12074 (D. Mass.).

Plaintiffs alleged that the defendant negligently maintained certain highly explosive chemicals at a Danvers, MA, facility in such a way that caused an explosion in 2006. At the time of the explosion, Ashland was the primary provider of chemicals to C.A.I., a manufacturer of commercial printing inks, and Arnel Co., Inc. a manufacturer of paint products. C.A.I. and Arnel both operated from the Danvers facility.  There was an incident that destroyed the Danvers facility and caused property damage to the surrounding Danversport community. The named plaintiffs claimed that Ashland, among other things: did not inquire or determine whether C.A.I. or Arnel had a license or permit to maintain the quantities and types of chemicals Ashland provided; failed to warn about the scope and magnitude of the explosive risks and hazards of the chemicals and chemical mixtures that it was providing; delivered chemicals into inappropriate containers and vessels. Ashland prepared a vigorous defense. Plaintiffs sued under theories of strict liability, negligence, nuisance, and breach of implied warranty of merchantability.

As is typical with mass disasters, multiple law suits were filed, including a Borelli matter.  Ashland was not named as a defendant in Borelli or in any of the additional suits brought against C.A.I., Arnel and its insurers.   In connection with the Borelli action, certain households and businesses in the Danversport area in close proximity to the site of the explosion created the Danversport Trust for the benefit of those whose real estate Property was directly impacted by the explosion and fire at the Danvers facility.  The state court eventually certified the Borelli class and approved a comprehensive settlement agreement.  It gets a little complicated because not  all Borelli class members were Trust beneficiaries, and the settlement agreement also contained an indemnification provision which applied to Trust beneficiaries and certain other settling parties, but not all of them. Specifically, this indemnification provision did not require Borelli class members who were not in the Trust or in a "Subrogated Group" of claimants to indemnify the released defendants from future claims. Rather, the settlement agreement provided that the remaining Borelli class members expressly reserved the right to initiate individual, class, or collective actions against any or all non-released parties. 

And that is how this case came to be filed against Ashland. Borelli class members, including the
named plaintiffs in the present action, received compensation resolving their claims in that matter.  Named plaintiff  Riva alleged that her residence and personal property in Danvers were destroyed by the explosion. Although Riva was not a Trust beneficiary, she was a member of the
Borelli class and received money from the Claims Review Committee to resolve her claims in that
matter.  Named plaintiff Corrieri alleged that his uninsured boat was damaged in the explosion while it was stored at Liberty Marina in Danvers. Corrieri was neither a Trust beneficiary nor was
he asserting individual claims for damages to real property. He received a settlement payment in the prior class action for damage to the same boat for which he now asserted claims against Ashland.

The plaintiffs moved for class certification, and the court's analysis focused on the typicality and adequacy prongs, particularly in light of the prior class settlement.

The requirements of typicality and adequacy focus on the class representatives, Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(a)(3) & 23(a)(4), and in the eyes of some courts “ tend to merge.” In re Credit Suisse-AOL Sec. Litig., 253 F.R.D. 17, 22 (D. Mass. 2008). Rule 23(a)(3) requires that “the claims or defenses of the representative parties [be] typical of the claims or defenses of the class.” The class representatives’ claims are “typical” when their claims arise from the same event or practice or course of conduct that gives rise to the claims of other class members, and are based on the same legal theory.  The class members' claims here did appear to arise from the same event (the accident), but despite these similarities, the court found that the named plaintiffs had not shown that their interests in proving liability were aligned with those of the class to meet the typicality requirement.

The indemnification provision of the prior settlement required the "Subrogated Group" and Trust beneficiaries to individually defend, hold harmless, and indemnify C.A.I. for any and all claims in the nature of third-party claims for indemnity or contribution which might be brought by Ashland. Since Ashland, a non-released party, had indeed brought a third-party claim for indemnification and contribution against C.A.I., a released party in Borelli, the impact of this indemnification provision on class members who were Indemnitors (i.e., Trust beneficiaries or members of the Subrogated
Group), was in the eyes of the court a "live issue in this case." The indemnification provision did not apply to the other class members who are neither Trust beneficiaries nor members of the Subrogated Group. So the indemnification provision could affect the Indemnitor and non-Indemnitor class members differently,  i.e., if the case was certified as a class action and the class prevailed, the Indemnitors in the class could become obligated to indemnify C.A.I., but other class members would not.

The court predicted that a substantial number of putative class members would be Indemnitors.  But the named plaintiffs were all non-Indemnitors and therefore would not be bound by the
indemnification provision. As non-Indemnitors, the named plaintiffs had a clear interest in proving
Ashland’s liability and maximizing damages. The majority of the class, the Indemnitors, on the
other hand, would not have the same goal since, according to the indemnification provision, they might be required to pay certain damages over to C.A.I.  Thus, it could not be said that the interests of the class representatives were typical of the class in this respect.

The adequacy requirement demands a similar inquiry into whether the putative representative plaintiff’s interests are aligned with other class members and whether the plaintiff is in a position to vigorously protect the class' interests.  Adequacy requires that the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. To be adequate class representatives, plaintiffs must show that: (1) the interests of the representative party will not conflict with the interests of the class members; and (2) counsel chosen by the representative party is qualified, experienced and able to vigorously conduct the proposed litigation.  Here, an apparent conflict of interest exists between the non-Indemnitors (i.e., the named plaintiffs) and the Indemnitors (i.e., most of the class). The Indemnitors’ interest in shielding themselves from liability over indicated they would pursue tactics contrary to the named plaintiffs’ objectives in both proving liability and maximizing all kinds of damages against Ashland.

The court noted that the fact that the class representatives have suffered the same injury as the Indemnitors and non-Indemnitors in the class was insufficient to show that the adequacy requirement was met. Class representatives must also “possess the same interests” as other class members.

Class certification denied. 

Ninth Circuit Applies Dukes

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.  

Class Certification Denied in Microwave Popcorn Litigation

A federal court has denied class certification in a proposed consumer fraud class action arising from the sale of microwave popcorn with artificial butter flavoring. See Courtney Fine v. Conagra Foods, Inc., No. CV 10-01848 SJO (C.D. Calif., Aug. 27, 2010).

The facts: Diacetyl is a naturally occurring chemical in butter, and was also used in artificial butter flavors for decades. In 2007 defendant Conagra, maker of microwave popcorn, issued a press release to the public stating it was no longer adding the compound diacetyl, which has been associated with lung injury in factory workers exposed to high doses, to its butter-flavored microwave popcorn products. Since the announcement, defendant "reformulated" all butter-flavored varieties of Orville Redenbacher's and Act II microwave popcorn in response, it said, to consumer uncertainty regarding the ingredients of the microwave popcorn. Conagra also redesigned the packaging for these products to display the words "No Added Diacetyl."

Plaintiff alleged that she understood the advertising claim to be there was no diacetyl in the new popcorn, as opposed to no added diacetyl, and alleged she relied on defendant's claims that there was "no diacetyl" in the popcorn products when making the purchases. Plaintiff asserted, however, that diacetyl is still present in the products (as part of natural butter). Plaintiff further asserted that had she known the representation regarding the diacetyl was false, she would not have made the purchases.

Plaintiff alleged causes of action for: (1) false and misleading representation of material facts, constituting unfair competition within the meaning of California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. ("UCL"); and (2) false advertising in violation of Business & Professions Code §§ 17500, et seq. ("FAL"). She further alleged that she suffered a monetary loss as a result of defendant's alleged actions, which were in violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750, et seq.

Last March, Conagra removed the case from state court to federal (Judge Otero). Then they filed a Motion to Dismiss based on various grounds, including that: (1) Plaintiff does not allege a cognizable injury resulting from defendant's products and therefore lacks standing; (2) Plaintiff fails to state a claim under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA as a matter of law under Rule 12(b)(6). The gist of the final argument was that plaintiff "received exactly what she paid for."  But, the court was persuaded that plaintiff adequately asserted that she did not get what she paid for, as she was under the impression that defendant's popcorn products were free of diacetyl. That is, she asserted that Conagra’s placement of "No Diacetyl Added" on the packaging is a material misrepresentation, and that reasonable consumers could (somehow) have taken the label to mean that diacetyl did not exist in the product at all.

Plaintiffs then moved for certification of a class consisting of all persons residing in the state of California who purchased Orville Redenbacher's brand Light Butter, Movie Theater Butter Light microwave popcorn, and/or ACT II brand 94% Fat Free Butter, Light Butter, and Butter Lover's microwave popcorn for personal use and not for resale since September 1, 2007. Plaintiff sought certification under Rule 23(b)(3) and 23(b)(2), but argued her "primary goal is to obtain injunctive relief by way of an order enjoining Defendant from its continued practice of making misleading advertising and label claims about its butter flavored microwave popcorn products."

The court denied the motion for class certification on three related grounds. The first problem was that in the court's prior Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (6/29/10), the court had ruled that plaintiff established standing for herself because she alleged that she incurred injury as a result of defendant's allegedly improper conduct. That is, plaintiff's spending money on defendant's popcorn in reliance of defendant's placing "No Added Diacetyl" on the packaging.

In the class Motion, plaintiff sought to certify a class that includes "all persons residing in the State of California who purchased [Defendant's] popcorn for personal use and not for resale since September 1, 2007."  Named plaintiff made no mention of the proposed class being comprised only of members who made the purchase as a result of defendant's allegedly false statements, which would be necessary in order to establish standing for the rest of the class.  The court noted that other courts have held that class definitions should be tailored to exclude putative class members who lack standing; each class member need not submit evidence of personal standing but, nonetheless, a class must be defined in such a way that anyone within it would have standing. Burdick v. Union Sec. Ins. Co., 2009 WL 4798873, at *4 (C.D. Cal. 2009).

Accordingly, class certification was improper here, given that plaintiff's proposed class included many people who may not have relied on defendant's alleged misrepresentations when making their purchasing decisions.

Second, a related problem was the Rule 23(a) requirement that plaintiff’s claims be typical of the class claims. The court agreed with Conagra that plaintiff failed to adduce facts suggesting that other class members have been injured by the same course of conduct that she asserts injured her. There could be no serious question, said the court, that the vast majority of putative class members here never read (let alone considered) the defendant's statement at issue, do not know what diacetyl is, and did not base their popcorn purchases on diacetyl-related issues. Plaintiff purchased popcorn, she said, because of defendant's allegedly misleading statements regarding diacetyl. Plaintiff's injury was established due to her alleged reliance on defendant's statements. But plaintiff sought to certify a class that would likely include people with varying rationales behind their purchases – many who purchased popcorn based on factors like flavor or brand. Plaintiff thus failed to establish that she could be a typical representative of the class, whose members were buying for all sorts of reasons unrelated to diacetyl.

Third, because the court found that plaintiff was not a typical representative, the court also held that plaintiff was not an adequate representative under Rule 23(a)(4).

What is refreshing about this short opinion is the recognition that Rule 23(a) matters too.  Often we see courts giver very cursory analysis of the (a) elements and/or emphasize that regardless of the initial prerequisites the issues of predominance, manageability and superiority dictate the certification result.  While the fact that class members undoubtedly bought microwave popcorn for many reasons would impact predominance of individual issues, it also does in fact suggest that the class representative's claims were not typical of the the class, as defined.

(NB. Your humble blogger is involved in the diacetyl litigation, but not this case.)

 

Class Action Motion Rejected in Human Tissue MDL

We have posted before about the interesting Human Tissue litigation.  The multidistrict litigation consolidated hundreds of cases filed either by plaintiffs who received allografts — transplants from cadavers — harvested by defendants allegedly without obtaining proper consent and following appropriate regulations, or by those plaintiffs who allegedly had allografts improperly taken from deceased relatives. The MDL court last week denied the latter plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In re: Human Tissue Products Liability Litigation, No. 06-135/MDL 1763 (D.N.J.).

According to the named representative plaintiffs, each of the class members had a deceased family member whose body went to one of the defendant funeral homes; plaintiffs claim that the funeral homes, after taking possession of the bodies, allowed another defendant to extract bones and tissue from the decedents. Following this, the harvested tissue then allegedly was given to other defendants, tissue banks. The purported class consisted of “all next of kin relatives of decedents whose bodies were desecrated by [defendants] for the harvesting and sale of human body parts."

Two parts of the opinion will be of the most interest to readers.  First, under the Rule 23(a) prerequisites, the court found that the typicality element was not established because of the highly individualized nature of the claims in this action.  Plaintiffs asserted emotional distress claims against the funeral homes that handled the donor decedents' remains and the tissue processors who allegedly received the harvested tissue. The Third Circuit has stated that class certification is inappropriate in mass tort claims, generally, because they often present questions of individualized issues of liability. In re Life USA Holding Inc., 242 F.3d 136, 145 (3d Cir. 2001). This observation is particularly true where the tort claims alleged are premised on emotional distress. The factual circumstances underlying each of the individual claims – including but not limited to plaintiffs' relationships with the decedents and the injuries allegedly suffered – were sufficiently personal and specific as to prevent any finding of similarity with regard to their claims.  

Also, plaintiffs were bringing contractual claims against the funeral home defendants, which again hinged on different factual circumstances that also might give rise to different defenses. There was no allegation that the individual contracts made with the funeral homes concerning final arrangements for the donor decedents were identical; in fact, since they were drafted and negotiated by different funeral home representatives and family members, they likely contained different representations, again subject to different defenses. For example, the meetings between funeral home personnel and the decedents' family members involved representations regarding the specific services requested and potential tissue donation. "These are all very personalized discussions," said the court.  All in all, the court found sufficient factual differences among the contracts negotiated with the different funeral homes to preclude a finding of typicality. See In re Schering Plough Corp. ERISA Litig., 589 F.3d 585, 598 (3d Cir. 2009)(“Ensuring that absent class members will be fairly protected required the claims and defenses of the representative to be sufficiently similar not just in terms of their legal form, but also in terms of their factual basis and support.”); see also In re Life USA Holding, Inc., 242 F.3d at 144-46 (vacating class certification in part because plaintiffs' claims of deceptive insurance sales practices arose from individual and non-standardized presentations by numerous independent agents).

It is significant that the court put some teeth into the 23(a) element. While the court acknowledged that factual differences will not automatically render a claim atypical if the claim arises from the same event or practice or course of conduct that gives rise to the claims of the class members, and if it is based on the same legal theory, here plaintiffs failed to demonstrate, other than through a bald assertion, that any practice or course of conduct existed among the funeral homes or among the tissue processors.

The same differences undermined a showing of predominance and superiority under Rule 23(b)(3), which provides for certification when the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.

The individual factual circumstances, including contractual arrangements, personal relationships with the decedents, injuries suffered, etc. precluded a 23(b)(3) class.  The superiority inquiry compels a court to balance, in terms of fairness and efficiency, the merits of a class action device against those of alternative available methods of adjudication.  Here, the multitude of individualized issues presented in plaintiffs' claims would entail complicated mini-trials within the class action itself.  The claims presented by plaintiffs and their unique factual underpinnings would require such extensive individual consideration that it would be neither more fair nor more efficient to proceed with this matter as a class action.  Class rejected.


 

Federal Court Denies Class Certification in Boat Fuel Case

A federal court last week denied class certification in a case arising from alleged damage to boats allegedly caused by ethanol blended gasoline. Kelecseny v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., et al., No. 08-61294-CIV-ALTONAGA/Brown (S.D. Fla. Nov. 25 2009).

Recent federal and state legislation requires that ethanol usage be expanded and that gasoline contain 9 to10% ethanol by December 31, 2010. Plaintiff sued several defendant gasoline manufacturers who have produced and/or marketed the ethanol blended gasoline (E10) used by the proposed class members for use in boats and watercraft in Florida allegedly without adequate warnings to consumers. The plaintiff asserted that E10 can cause difficulty starting the engine or rough engine operation, engine overheating, engine fires,  corrosion of aluminum tanks, degradation of fiberglass tanks and resins, and other damages.

The court noted the evidence that some defendants have, in other countries, posted warning signs that E10 may not be suitable for use in boats. Numerous articles have appeared in boating magazines, some boat manufacturers provide E10 warnings in their owners’ manuals, and many marine mechanics are aware that E10 may cause problems in certain types of boats.

 

The class sought relief against all defendants under a “market share” theory of negligence, based on Conley v. Boyle Drug Co., 570 So. 2d 275, 286 (Fla. 1990), alleging that because of the general methods for the use and distribution of gasoline used to fuel boats, plaintiffs did not know the identity of each of the named defendants that sold the ethanol blended gasoline that they purchased for use in their boats.

 

Our review focuses on the damages class, defined as owners of boats in the state of Florida whose fuel tanks are composed of polyester of vinyl ester resin fiberglass fuel tanks. The court noted first that even to determine whether certain individuals may be in the class, a detailed individual inquiry would be required. Because it would be impossible to definitively identify class members prior to individualized fact-finding and litigation, the proposed class fails to satisfy the most basic requirements for a class action under Rule 23, ascertainability.

 

Turning to the Rule 23(a) factors, while it is possible that the proposed class could satisfy the numerosity requirement, plaintiff had not made a clear showing that the number of actual class members will be so high that joinder of all members is impracticable. Plaintiff argued that his starting number (680) was so large that defense attempts to carve certain boats out of the total number would never work to defeat numerosity. However, courts have made it abundantly clear that the burden to satisfy numerosity is on the plaintiff seeking to certify a class, and a plaintiff is not permitted to make a purely speculative showing that numerosity has been met.

 

Next, although typicality “does not require identical claims or defenses,” a factual difference in the representative’s claims will render those claims atypical if the factual position of the class representative “markedly differs from that of other members of the class.” Named plaintiff’s damages claims and the defenses to those claims differed markedly from those of other potential class members, said the court. The uncontroverted expert testimony at the certification stage established that the type of fiberglass tanks at issue are found in relatively large boats that are not suitable to be transported or carried by trailer.  Owners whose boats are equipped with fiberglass fuel tanks, therefore, are most likely to purchase their fuel at marinas, where their boats are kept or to which they travel on water for fueling. In contrast, plaintiff purchased fuel for his boat at numerous gas stations by use of a fuel caddy that he carried in his pick-up truck. Expert witnesses and the parties agree that this behavior was atypical. This difference in behavior between named plaintiff and other potential class members “jeopardizes Plaintiff’s ability to sue Defendants collectively under a market share theory.”

 

Importantly, the court noted that plaintiff cited no case in which market share liability has been applied in a class action, “and there appears to be good reason why no such case exists.” It is simply untenable to apply market share liability [in those few states that recognize it], with its requirement of the narrowest possible geographic market, to a class action consisting of members whose activities cover an entire state.  The requirement of a narrowly tailored geographic market is particularly important in market share liability cases because only with a narrow geographic market may a defendant avail itself of the defenses afforded by the market share theory.

 

On the Rule 23(b) factors, plaintiff’s argument disregarded the many individualized inquiries that would be required in the proposed class action and which clearly outweighed the asserted common issues. As to each individual plaintiff, a fact finder would have to determine where that particular plaintiff purchased fuel, and what, if any, warnings were in place at that station at that time or at different times. Also, plaintiffs had to show that defendants’ failure to warn of the dangers of E10 was the proximate cause of the damage to the boats. This requisite showing raised two issues of individualized inquiry. First, each proposed class member must demonstrate that had warnings of the danger of E10 existed, he or she would have heeded those warnings and not used E10 in his or her boat. Non-ethanol blended fuel is more difficult to find than E10 and is generally more expensive than E10. It is conceivable that some boat owners, even if warned that E10 might damage their fuel tanks, would opt for the convenience and lower cost of E10, and assume the risk of damage. Indeed, plaintiff himself apparently continued to use E10 in his boat despite his knowledge of the risks.

 

The proximate cause requirement also mandates an individualized inquiry into whether each proposed class member had personal knowledge that E10 could damage fiberglass fuel tanks. As noted above, some information was available from other sources that E10 may not be appropriate.

Finally, the court noted something that is extremely important to readers of MassTortDefense, and which some courts ignore: fact issues can be created by defenses and by a defendant’s response to plaintiff’s claims. If those fact issues are individual, that is every bit as important to the class certification decision as individual issues raised by plaintiff’s own affirmative proof. While plaintiff’s experts asserted that no individual examination of fiberglass fuel tanks was necessary, defendants’ experts disagreed. Thus, inspection of the fuel tank of each proposed class member was a reasonable request to determine whether any existing damage was actually caused by E10.

Similarly, defendants have the right to assert the comparative fault defense, and its assertion would involve individual inquiries concerning each proposed class member’s knowledge and behavior. Inquiry would be necessary as to whether each boat owner received an owner’s manual that warned against the use of E10; whether any had ever been told by a mechanic not to use E10; whether any had ever seen a warning sign at a marina or researched E10 on the internet; and whether, despite personal knowledge, the boat owner nonetheless chose to fuel the boat with E10 based on convenience and cost savings.

MDL Court Denies Class Certification in Device Litigation

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.