Consumer Class Actions and Mass Torts : Class Action Lawyer & Attorney : J. Russell Jackson : Skadden Law Firm : Complex Class Actions : Consumer Class Actions & Mass Torts Law Blog

A recent tobacco decision out of the Northern District of Illinois highlights the importance of challenging the class definition in the defense of consumer fraud cases.  in Cleary v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 2010 WL 680957 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 22, 2010), plaintiffs had brought three different class actions against the tobacco industry.  One was for illegal underage smoking, one was for nicotene addiction, and one was for allegedly deceptively marketing "low tar," "light," and "ultra light" cigarettes as safer than other cigarettes.

Because of summary judgments that previously had been granted, the first two classes failed for lack of a representative plaintiff.  But the court considered the class certification motion for the "light" cigarettes case.

The class was defined expansively:  "persons who purchased and consumed Marlboro Lights in Illinois 'from the time such cigarettes were placed into the stream of commerce until the date that the defendant publicly and adequately disclosed to consumers the true nature and effect of these cigarettes."  Id. at *1. 

The court found that the complaint met the numerosity and commonality requirements of Rule 23(a), but it failed to meet the typicality requirement for two reasons.  First, the plaintiff did not explain how he intended to demonstrate that he suffered an injury from defendant's alleged fraud and how that was typical of the class members.  Second -- and more important -- the court focused on the overbreadth of plaintiff's class definition.

As the court explained:

Class C is defined so broadly that it is likely to include persons who suffered no detriment at all due to Philip Morris's conduct.  Some class members may have purchased Marlboro Lights for reasons wholly unrelated to its purportedly less-unhealthy qualities--for example, because they preferred the flavor of other brands.  And other class members may have purchased Marlboro Lights despite being completely unaware of claimed differences between the adverse effects of "light" cigarettes and other, non-"light" brands.   It is not entirely clear where Cleary fits in along this spectrum.  Though it is true, as Cleary points out, that factual differences among the claims of class members do not necessarily defeat typicality, the likelihood that some significant proportion of class members experienced no injury at all does, at least in a case like this one in which proof of detriment is a necessary element of the claim. 

Id. at *4 (citation omitted).

Whether the court treats it as part of the element of typicality, as the Cleary court did here, or whether it treats it as a fundamental problem with the class definition, "overbreadth" (i.e., including within the class people who were uninjured by the product) presents serious problems that go to the core of who is going to be bound by the verdict and how the proof is going to establish classwide truths.  That is why courts increasingly are denying class certification to overbroad classes. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A recent decision from the Louisiana Court of Appeals demonstrates once again why personal injury claims simply cannot be tried as class actions.  In Pollard v. Alpha Technical Services Inc., 2010 WL 323576 (Jan. 28, 2010), plaintiffs alleged that for more than forty years, industrial property in Harvey, Louisiana had been used to clean oilfield pipes of scale or crust that had built up in the interior of the tubing.  This scale or crust was alleged to be barium sulfate -- later identified as radium sulfate -- and other radioactive materials.  Plaintiffs alleged that "toxic dust" from the industrial property was deposited in their residential neighborhood, causing "various diseases and illnesses, including prenatal complications, various types of cancer, neurological disorders, impairment of kidney function," and impairment of liver function.  Id. at *2.

The trial court conducted a class certification hearing and determined that the putative class failed to meet the class certification prerequisites.  Plaintiffs appealed, and the Court of Appeals determined that, for the most part, the trial court had not abused its discretion in its analysis.

I say "for the most part" because the Court of Appeals did hold that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that the numerosity requirement was not satisfied.  Plaintiffs estimated the potential class to be between 2,000 and 4,000 people.  The trial court determined that 3,748 people already had indicated their intention to opt out.  Id. at *5.  The plaintiffs argued that there can be no opt outs until a certified class exists and absent class members can evaluate whether to participate.  The Court of Appeals agreed, holding that "the trial court was manifestly erroneous in finding that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the numerosity requirement."  Id. at *6

But the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's remaining conclusions.  It found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's conclusion that the commonality requirement had not been satisfied:

There is no controlling issue subject to proof on a class-wide basis.  The differences in amounts and lengths of exposure, the personal history, habits and supposed illnesses of each particular claimant and the differences in operations and locations and customers of the five pipe-cleaning defendants, taken together and taken separately, mean that Plaintiffs cannot identify any common issue that can be resolved with respect to putative class members.

Id. at *7.

Similarly, the trial court was correct in concluding that the typicality requirement was not met:

The class representatives' claims are widely divergent from those of the putative class members. . . .  Some class representatives claimed no medical condition whatsoever, implicitly conceding that none could have been caused. . . .  Others claim widely varying problems, ranging from loss of smell to skin rashes to nosebleeds to hammer-toe to miscarriages to cancer.

Id.

And the trial court was correct in holding that the named class representatives could not adequately represent the absent class members because of the differences in their injuries.  Id. at *8.

The trial court also was correct in holding that the proposed class definition failed to properly identify at the outset who was in the class.  The trial court noted the inconsistencies and errors made by Plaintiffs' expert in modeling air dispersion and trying to establish times, spatial boundaries, and exposure levels for defining the class.  The trial court found that the proposed class definition "could potentially include anyone who once drove through the area," and it could not be saved by defining the class as persons who suffered injury from exposure because that would require a merits-based determination to be made in mini-trials at the outset just to decide who was in and out of the class.  Id. at *9.  The Court of Appeals agreed, but observed that if the other problems with the class had not been so insurmountable, it might have been inclined to remand so that plaintiffs could more narrowly define the class.  However, given the other fatal problems with the class, the court simply affirmed the trial court's conclusion on the class definition as well.  Id. at *11.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

California state courts are reluctant to apply their Unfair Competition Law to a nationwide class.  Perhaps it's because they recognize that theirs is one of the most liberal (and standardless) consumer fraud statutes in the nation.  Whatever the cause, this reluctance made it all the more notable when Judge Christina A. Snyder held -- with little conflicts-of-law analysis whatsoever -- that the UCL could be applied to a nationwide class of advertisers suing Citysearch.  See Menagerie Productions v. Citysearch, 2009 WL 3770668 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2009).

Plaintiffs sought to represent a nationwide class of advertisers who had elected to have their advertising priced by the number of clicks on their ads.  CitySearch recognized that "spiders," "robots," and other tools often try to click on advertisers' ads, and these do not represent potential sales.  Thus, CitySearch represented that it employed "industry leading traffic quality systems . . . to detect unusual and fraudulent click behavior.  Attempts to artificially drive up an advertiser's clicks, whether manually or via robots or other deceptive tools, will be detected by our systems and automatically thrown out."

Plaintiffs claim CitySearch failed to identify fraudulent clicks, and that they paid too much for their advertising as a result.  They asserted breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of the Unfair Competition Law.

The court found that the requirements of Rule 23(a) were met, ignoring the defendant's arguments that plaintiffs had not seen the alleged misrepresentations and that CitySearch had had individual dealings with complaining advertisers, which made the plaintiffs' claims atypical.

The court then analyzed whether the proposed class met the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3).  It held that the breach of contract count met the predominance requirement because the language of the contract -- which was the same for all class members -- was unambiguous, and it specified that California law would govern.  Even if the language were not unambiguous, the court reasoned, the extrinsic evidence that the court would rely upon would be representations on CitySearch's website that were uniform for all class members.  It similarly held that the breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing count also met the predominance requirement.

On the UCL claim, the court found that the predominance requirement was met for the "fraudulent" prong of the UCL because, it reasoned, there was no need to adjudicate individual circumstances; rather, applying In re Tobacco II, 46 Cal. 4th 298, 320 (2009), the court concluded that the case would be adjudicated under a "reasonable consumer standard" that focuses on whether members of the public were likely to be deceived."  Thus, there would be no individualized proof of deception, reliance, and injury caused thereby.

The court reached a different conclusion for the "unfairness" prong of the UCL.  There, the court held that the test for "unfairness" requires a balancing of effects and motives that make the plaintiffs' individual expectations relevant in determining the extent of the harm.  As such, the court concluded that the predominance requirement was not met for claims under the "unfairness" prong of the UCL.

Incredibly, the court's entire analysis of whether the UCL could be applied to a nationwide class based on the California residence of defendant CitySearch is contained in this sentence:

Furthermore, the Court agrees that California's UCL can be applied to the nationwide class, as CitySearch has not shown that any "differences between California law and the law of other jurisdictions are material," nor that "other states have an interest in applying their laws to this case."

2009 WL 3770668 at *15 (citation omitted).  To begin with, the burden on choice of law is the plaintiffs' as proponents of the class, not CitySearch's.  As yesterday's post showed, without an extensive choice of law analysis, plaintiffs cannot even begin to meet that burden.  But beyond that, come on:  there is no evidence of the differences between the California UCL and other states' UCLs being material?  Really?!!  How about the fact that every other state requires some sort of proof of actual deception that causes injury -- for each class member?  Or the fact that some states, like South Carolina, do not even allow class actions under their consumer fraud statutes?

The CitySearch opinion has a number of points that would appear to present appealable error, including the court's conclusions on superiority in which the proposed trial plan utterly ignores the defendants' individual defenses.  But this conclusion -- applying California's UCL to a nationwide class -- is the most wrong and least supported in the opinion, which should make it rife for an appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

It's hardly news when another court refuses to certify a personal injury class action.  These days, it's almost a given that such litigation presents too many individual issues of fact to meet the predominance standard of Rule 23(b)(3).

But the recent decision from Judge Terrence Boyle in the Panacryl Sutures Multidistrict Litigation is notable for its considerable discussion of the choice of law problems presented by such claims.  See In re Panacryl Sutures Prods. Liab. Cases, No. 5:08-MD-1959-BO, Slip op. (E.D.N.C. Nov. 13, 2009).  In this case, plaintiffs alleged that they suffered personal injuries as a result of having been implanted with absorbable surgical sutures that were designed to remain in the body for 24-36 months after surgery to provide wound support.  The sutures had been the subject of a Class II recall by the defendant.  Plaintiffs alleged that they were prone to cause a high rate of infection, and that the defendant failed to warn of that fact.  Interestingly, the opinion never once quotes the proposed class definition, but we know that it was a putative nationwide class with representatives from North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Arkansas.

The court began its analysis with the choice of law issue, and it took the plaintiffs to task for not having provided a comprehensive survey of the substantive laws potentially applicable to all class members' claims, holding that they failed to carry their burden of proving that common questions of law predominate.  Slip op. at 4.

Nevertheless, the court completed the analysis, noting the differences in the substantive laws of the various states, and examining the factors identified in Section 6 of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws to determine what law governs in a tort action.  The court rejected the plaintiffs' suggestion that the law of the manufacturer's residence should govern, instead holding that the interests of the class members' home states in protecting their residents from in-state injuries caused by foreign companies outweighed New Jersey's interest in regulating domestic corporations.  Slip. op. at 6-7.  It noted that plaintiffs would not likely have imagined that their claims could be governed by foreign New Jersey law, and that the defendant had to expect to be subject to the laws of all jurisdictions in which it sold products.  The court also held that the plaintiffs' home states were where the injuries occurred, where the conduct causing the injury (sale and marketing) occurred, and where the relationship between the defendant and the plaintiffs was centered.  Id. at 9.

The court also cited a recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision -- Rowe v. Hoffman LaRoche, Inc., 917 A.2d 767 (N.J. 2007) -- in which the court held that applying New Jersey law to a Michigan plaintiff's claims merely because the drug was made in New Jersey "completely undercuts Michigan's interests, while overvaluing our true interest in this litigation."  Accordingly, the court held that the law of each class member's home jurisdiction would apply to his or her claims.

The court found that the numerosity and commonality requirements of Rule 23(a) were satisfied, but the conflict of laws problem required a finding that the typicality and adequacy of representation requirements of Rule 23(a) were not satisfied.  Slip op. at 12-14.

In analyzing the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3), the court noted that "[c]ourts have generally found that common questions of fact do not predominate in medical products liability cases."  Id.  But beyond the individual fact issues trumping the predominance of any common issues, the conflict of law issues also required the same result.  Indeed, once again the court took plaintiffs to task for failing to 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."  Id. at 15.

Judge Boyle also rejected a proposed trial plan that would have used "issue classes" to decide common issues even though Rule 23(b)(3)'s requirements were not satisfied.  In the proposed trial plan, "Phase One" would have addressed "common issues of liability and general causation," and "Phase Two" would have consisted of "individual trials to determine specific causation and damages."  Id. at 18.  In rejecting the plan, the court stated:

But Rule 23(c)(4) may not be used to manufacture predominance for the purposes of Rule 23(b)(3).  Plaintiffs' trial plan does 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 trial plan, the difficulty of applying the laws of several states to issues of liability and general causation would remain.

Id. at 19.

Judge Boyle's opinion is an excellent recent example of a trial court confronting head-on the proof problems presented by a personal injury class action and refusing to vary the substantive law (including the elements of causes of action, as well as individual defenses) just to achieve the so-called "procedural efficiency" of a classwide trial.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks