A federal court in New Jersey last week joined the small but growing trend (call it a simmer not a boil) of courts putting some real meaning into the prerequisites to class certification found in Rule 23(a).  The court in Coyle v. Hornell Brewing Co., No. 1:08-cv-02797-JBS-JS (D.N.J. 2011) found that the factual inaccuracies and/or inconsistencies in the proposed class representative’s testimony constituted fatal flaws under Rule 23(a)(4) requiring an adequate class representative.

Plaintiff alleged that she was misled by labels on bottles of Arizona brand beverages touting “All Natural” ingredients, and thereby induced into buying bottles of Arizona beverages that contained High Fructose Corn Syrup (“HFCS”), which she claimed is not “natural”. Plaintiff sought to certify, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), a class of consumers who purchased similarly labeled Arizona beverages that contained HFCS, seeking only declaratory and injunctive relief.  The underlying claims were based on the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (“NJCFA”). [Full disclosure, we are partial to their Arizona Sports thirst-quenchers.]

The court denied plaintiff’s motion for class certification because she could not satisfy the adequacy requirement of Rule 23(a)(4).  The reasoning is instructive. During the course of discovery in this case, plaintiff produced a retainer agreement she signed in anticipation of this lawsuit. But, the agreement was signed on August 9, 2007, more than seven months before plaintiff alleged that she was first misled by defendants’ “all natural” labeling in her product purchase on March 30, 2008.  Indeed, plaintiff repeated the 3/08 purchase date in her deposition.

Problem. Solution? Nearly two months after her deposition, plaintiff produced a signed declaration that contradicted her deposition testimony (and prior answers to interrogatories and the allegations in both her original Complaint and subsequent Amended Complaints).  She now said she meant to claim the alleged purchase occurred in March, 2007 rather than on March 30, 2008. But she offers no explanation for why she had previously alleged the March 30, 2008 date in her Complaints and in certified answers to interrogatories.

The court noted that in the procedural posture, the substantive allegations of the complaint must be taken as true.  But class certification questions are sometimes enmeshed in the factual and legal issues comprising the plaintiff’s cause of action, and courts may delve beyond the pleadings to determine whether the requirements for class certification are satisfied.  The Third Circuit calls for a “rigorous analysis”  of a motion to certify a class. In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig., 552 F.3d 305, 309 (3d Cir. 2008). Specifically, the district court must make findings that each Rule 23 requirement is met.  Id. at 310. Plaintiff has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence that she has met each and every element of Rule 23.

Rule 23(a)(4) seeks to ensure “that the representatives and their attorneys will competently, responsibly, and vigorously prosecute the suit and that the relationship of the representative parties’ interests to those of the class are such that there is not likely to be divergence in viewpoint or goals in the conduct of the suit.”  Bogosian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 561F.2d 434, 449 (3d Cir. 1977). On the subsidiary question whether the named plaintiff has interests antagonistic to those of the class, courts often have to evaluate attacks on the named plaintiff’s credibility.

Here, defendants argued that plaintiff’s inconsistent allegations and testimony regarding the date of her qualifying purchase of an Arizona product render her an inadequate class representative. See Friedman-Katz v. Lindt & Sprungli (USA), Inc., 270 F.R.D. 150, 159 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). Plaintiff  responded that, to the extent that defendant raised a problem of plaintiff’s credibility, such a credibility question is one for the jury to decide; it would be improper for the court to make a credibility determination, on the factual dispute of when plaintiff last purchased an Arizona product, at this certification stage of the litigation.  However, the court properly recognized it had an independent obligation at the class certification stage to make findings on whether the named plaintiff satisfied each of the Rule 23 elements. The court thus had an obligation to look at whether the credibility problems raised by plaintiff’s contradictory testimony and subsequent declaration rendered her an inadequate class representative.

The court observed that it need not find plaintiff to have intentionally lied to hold that she does not meet the adequacy element of Rule 23(a)(4). The issue was not simply whether plaintiff in fact lied, but whether her inconsistent testimony makes her vulnerable to a unique factual or legal defense not faced by other class members, thereby rendering her interests potentially too antagonistic to the interests of the other class members.  And that is exactly the case; the court found that plaintiff’s factual inconsistencies raised sufficiently grave credibility problems as to prevent her from serving as an adequate class representative.

First, she filed three separate Complaints alleging with specificity that she was misled by  defendants’ labeling when she first purchased an Arizona beverage in March, 2008, but she had retained an attorney on this issue seven months previously.  She repeated these claims in at least two answers to interrogatories, assisted by counsel, and again repeated the claim in her  deposition, even after being confronted with the apparent inconsistency of such a claim. Her subsequent declaration, in which she attempted to “clarify” the time-line in her deposition, did not explain how she had repeatedly asserted the incorrect date in her Complaints and discovery answers.  This level of inconsistency logically demonstrated either (1) an effort to disguise the fact that she did purchase the Arizona beverage in 2008 as alleged, but for the sole purpose of bringing the lawsuit she had already hired a lawyer for, or (2) a significant carelessness about the specific highly material facts she has alleged in the case, said the court.

Under either scenario, the court would find that plaintiff was not an adequate class representative.  Were she to be a class representative, she would be required to address defendants’ argument that she made her only documented purchase of Arizona iced tea in March of 2008 solely for the purpose of bringing the instant lawsuit and therefore suffered no ascertainable loss. This argument would divert attention from the substance of the claims advanced on behalf of the class.  That would risk that the class could fail in its claim because its representative was unable to prove she made a qualifying purchase, noted the court.

Finally, the court found, as an alternative basis to deny class certification, that plaintiff’s counsel’s adequacy was also brought into question through the existence of these material discrepancies. Under the “most charitable interpretation” of these facts, counsel submitted three separate Complaints to the court alleging an incorrect date of purchase, at least two answers to interrogatories repeating the same purportedly incorrect purchase date. The court thought that was insufficient attention to detail to show the ability to effectively represent the interests of a class.