1:16-cv-01849
D. Colo.Mar 11, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs, a group of home service professionals (SPs), brought a class action against HomeAdvisor and related defendants, alleging misrepresentation of the quality of "leads" sold through the defendants' online home services marketplace.
- The Court previously certified certain Misappropriation Classes (nationwide and state-level) but denied certification of proposed Deceptive Practices Classes nationwide and in nine states, finding predominance and superiority lacking under Rule 23(b)(3).
- Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration and also sought interlocutory appeal after the Court's denial, both of which were rejected (including by the Tenth Circuit).
- Plaintiffs then sought leave to file a second, narrower class certification motion, limiting claims to Colorado and up to eight other state classes with fewer causes of action per class.
- Defendants opposed, arguing that plaintiffs identified no new legal or factual developments and were seeking a "do-over" on previously rejected strategies without any justification for such reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to grant leave to file a second, narrowed class certification motion | Narrowed class/claims resolve prior concerns; no manageability issues remain | No new facts/law; just a tactical shift; allowing this wastes resources | Denied: No new facts/law or changed circumstances justify new motion |
| Whether variations in state law defeat predominance and manageability | Proposed groupings and plans make the case manageable, even across multiple states | Variations still critical, especially burdens of proof/statutes of limitation; unmanageable for jury instructions | Court agreed with defendants: variations remain and plaintiffs failed to address/manage them |
| Whether plaintiffs satisfied Rule 23(b)(3) requirements for predominance and superiority | Common legal and factual issues predominate in new, narrower classes | Plaintiffs did not provide claim-specific analysis for legal elements or jury instruction plans | Court held plaintiffs failed to carry their burden under Rule 23(b)(3) |
| Whether denial of initial certification and new trial plan justifies reconsideration | Court did not hold plaintiffs incapable; denies only on manageability grounds | Plaintiffs already had opportunity, chose broader class; denial isn’t a changed circumstance | Held denial of prior motion isn’t sufficient—no second chance for failed litigation strategies |
Key Cases Cited
- Sacred Heart Health Sys., Inc. v. Humana Mil. Healthcare Servs., Inc., 601 F.3d 1159 (11th Cir. 2010) (describes requirements for managing variations in state law in class certification)
- Castano v. Am. Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734 (5th Cir. 1996) (predominance defeated when state law variations swamp common issues)
- East Tex. Motor Freight Sys., Inc. v. Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395 (1977) (plaintiffs bear the burden to establish class action requirements)
- Waste Mgmt. Holdings, Inc. v. Mowbray, 208 F.3d 288 (1st Cir. 2000) (affirmative defenses, including statutes of limitations, are relevant to class certification)