Akilah Louise Wofford v. M.J. Edwards & Sons Funeral Home, Inc.
528 S.W.3d 524
| Tenn. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs (next of kin and persons who contracted for funeral services) sued multiple funeral homes after remains were delivered to Galilee Memorial Gardens, an unlicensed cemetery, where records and a receiver showed widespread improper handling (e.g., multiple burials per grave, crushing caskets).
- The purported class covers decedents delivered to Galilee from Jan. 1, 2011 through Jan. 31, 2014 (about 1,288 burials); claims include breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, mishandling of remains, and equitable relief to locate/identify remains.
- Trial Court certified a class under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 23, finding numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance of common issues, and that a class is the superior method for adjudication.
- Defendants challenged certification on multiple grounds: lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (Chancery forum), plaintiffs’ standing, enforceability/effect of arbitration clauses (M.J. Edwards contracts), and that the Trial Court abused its discretion in certifying the class.
- The Tennessee Court of Appeals reviewed for abuse of discretion, concluded the Trial Court conducted the required rigorous analysis, and affirmed certification, holding the chancery court had jurisdiction, that at least one named representative had standing, arbitration did not defeat commonality, and common issues predominated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction (Chancery court) | Claims are rooted in breach of contract and equitable relief; chancery has concurrent jurisdiction. | Chancery lacks jurisdiction over unliquidated damages not arising from contract. | Chancery had jurisdiction over contract and equitable claims and could adjudicate related claims to avoid multiplicity of actions. |
| Standing of class representatives | At least one named plaintiff signed contracts or is next of kin; that suffices for class standing. | Some named reps lacked standing; Trial Court didn’t expressly find standing in initial order. | At least one named representative had standing; suffices for class certification purposes. |
| Arbitration clauses (M.J. Edwards) | Arbitration clauses are unconscionable / unenforceable and do not defeat class treatment. | Enforceable arbitration clauses (for some contracts) would pick off class members and defeat commonality. | Prior appellate ruling found the clause unconscionable; speculative future arbitration demands do not defeat certification. |
| Rule 23 requirements / abuse of discretion | Common contractual, statutory, fiduciary duties and common course of conduct predominate; class action is superior to hundreds of individual suits. | Individualized issues (damages, differences among contracts, arbitration) predominate and preclude certification. | Trial Court performed rigorous analysis, and its findings on numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority were not an abuse of discretion; certification affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Am. Med. Sys. Inc., 75 F.3d 1069 (6th Cir. 1996) (numerosity and typicality discussion in mass class contexts)
- Meighan v. U.S. Sprint Commc’ns Co., 924 S.W.2d 632 (Tenn. 1996) (Tennessee standard deference to trial court on class certification)
- Freeman v. Blue Ridge Paper Prods., Inc., 229 S.W.3d 694 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (requirements of Rule 23 and appellate review standard)
- Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co., 563 U.S. 804 (U.S. 2011) (predominance inquiry starts with elements of underlying claims)
- Varno v. Tindall, 51 S.W.2d 502 (Tenn. 1932) (Chancery jurisdiction over unliquidated damages not arising from contract)
- Hill v. Travelers Ins. Co., 294 S.W. 1097 (Tenn. 1927) (emotional harm from desecration of remains recognized)