Cole v. GMC - 484 F.3d 717 (5th Cir. 2007)

Rule:

To satisfy the predominance requirement, plaintiffs must demonstrate that questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). In a diversity class action, inherent in the predominance inquiry is a determination of which states' substantive laws will apply to the claims. This is because if multiple states' laws apply and those laws vary, the variations may impact whether common issues of law and fact predominate among the class members. The Rule 23(b)(3) certification inquiry must therefore consider how variations in state law affect predominance. 

Facts:

General Motors Corporation ("GM") manufactured and sold over 200,000 1998 and 1999 model year Cadillac DeVilles ("DeVilles") in the United States. The DeVilles feature side-impact Air Bag Systems and Side Impact Sensing Modules ("SISMs"), the latter of which trigger inflation of the vehicle's side impact air bags under certain conditions. This class action centers on alleged defects in the SISMs. The district court certified a nationwide class of owners bringing claims under the laws of 51 jurisdictions. GM appealed.

Issue:

Did the district court err in certifying a nationwide class of owners bringing claims under the laws of 51 jurisdictions?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court reversed the certification order. Although the owners established a concrete injury in fact for standing to pursue the class action, the owners failed to satisfy the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3). The owners failed both to undertake the required extensive analysis of variations in state law concerning their claims and to consider how those variations impacted predominance. The owners' textual presentation of legal authority oversimplified the required analysis and glossed over glaring substantive legal conflicts among the applicable laws of each jurisdiction. There was a clear split of authority among the jurisdictions as to reliance, required notice, privity requirements, warranty protections for used vehicles, presumptions of merchantability, and recovery for unmanifested vehicle defects. Thus, the district court was not in a position to determine that questions of law and fact common to the members of the class predominated in the vacuum created by the owners' omission.