Chandler v. Sw. Jeep-Eagle - 162 F.R.D. 302 (N.D. Ill. 1995)

Rule:

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 requires a two-step analysis to determine whether class certification is appropriate. First, the action must satisfy all four requirements of Rule 23(a). That is, the plaintiff must meet the prerequisites of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. All of these elements are prerequisites to certification; failure to meet any one of these precludes certification as a class. Second, the action must satisfy one of the conditions of Rule 23(b)

Facts:

Plaintiff Raymond Chandler ("Chandler") purchased from Southwest Jeep-Eagle, Inc. ("Southwest") a used Chrysler automobile to be used for personal, family and household purposes. At the time he purchased the car, Chandler signed Southwest's standard motor vehicle retail installment sales contract, which was subsequently assigned to Calumet National Bank. Chandler also informed Southwest that he wished to purchase a full warranty from Chrysler that would be transferrable to another authorized Chrysler dealership for the purpose of repairs. Shortly after Chandler purchased his vehicle, it developed substantial mechanical problems. After becoming frustrated with Southwest's inability to make the necessary repairs, Chandler took the vehicle to another authorized Chrysler dealer and requested service under the Chrysler service contract that he had purchased through Southwest. The dealer informed Chandler that the Chrysler warranty computer showed no record of Chandler's service contract, and refused to perform the necessary repairs. Chandler then revoked his acceptance of the vehicle on the basis of unmerchantability. Thereafter, Chandler sued Southwest and Calumet (collectively, defendants), seeking redress for alleged misrepresentations and unfair and deceptive practices in connection with Southwest's standard retail installment contract. Chandler moved for class certification.

Issue:

Should the court grant Chandler’s motion for class certification?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court noted that Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2) required the presence of questions of law or fact common to the class. A common nucleus of operative fact was generally enough to satisfy the commonality requirement. According to the court, a common nucleus of operative fact was typically found where, as in the instant case, the defendants have engaged in standardized conduct toward members of the proposed class. Moreover, the court held that Chandler was able to satisfy all four requirements of Rule 23(a), i.e., numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. According to the court, there was: (i) numerosity since the proposed classes were sufficiently numerous to make joinder impracticable; (ii) commonality since all proposed class members purchased a standard service contract from Southwest; (iii) typicality since Chandler’s claim arose from the same event or practice or course of conduct that gave rise to the claims of other class members, and were based on the same legal theory; and finally (iv) adequacy of representation since Chandler has no antagonistic or conflicting claims with other members of the class, he has sufficient interest in the outcome to ensure vigorous advocacy, and his counsel was competent, experienced, qualified, and generally able to conduct the proposed litigation vigorously. Accordingly, the court granted class certification.