Alderwoods Group, Inc. v. Garcia
119 So. 3d 497
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Alderwoods and related entities operated Graceland Memorial Park South Cemetery, facing claims from three relatives unable to locate gravesites in the old section (1959–1993).
- Florida Department of Banking and Finance investigated the Cemetery; a 1997 stipulation/consent order required audits and compliance measures.
- The Department issued a 1999 cease-and-desist order after ongoing noncompliance, suspending preneed and related license activities until reform.
- A 2002 Final Order required reconciliation of burial space inventory and records, with a two-year follow-up to ensure compliance; the order barred further actions for resolved violations.
- In 2004–2006, the Representative Plaintiffs filed suit alleging inability to locate graves, seeking damages and class certification for remedies including an injunction
- In 2011, the trial court certified a class for Count IV (injunctive relief) and the underlying Counts I–III liability issues, defining the class as pre-1994 burials in the old section with unlocatable graves due to poor records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether class certification for permanent injunctive relief was proper | Garcia argued class-wide relief appropriate to address systemic record issues. | Alderwoods contends injunctive relief cannot be determined via class process because it would mandate the relief sought and prefigure liability. | No; injunctive relief class certification improper due to risk of de facto verdict and burden-shifting. |
| Whether res judicata bars the injunctive-relief claim | Plaintiffs claim the prior action did not bar their private injury relief. | Alderwoods asserts the prior administrative action precludes the injunctive relief. | Yes; res judicata bars permanent mandatory injunctive relief that would redo resolved administrative violations. |
| Whether Counts I–III are amenable to class treatment | Plaintiffs argue damages claims could be certified where common questions predominate. | Defendant argues dominant relief is injunctive and damages claims require individualized proof not suitable for class action. | No; with Count IV barred, remaining claims require individualized proof and predominate damages, not suitable for class treatment. |
| Whether the class definition is ascertainable and appropriate | Plaintiffs proposed a broad pre-1994 old-section class with unreadable markers. | Defendant contends the definition would require mini-merits inquiries to identify members. | No; the definition is fundamentally flawed and not readily ascertainable without individualized, fact-intensive inquiry. |
Key Cases Cited
- Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 2006) (parens patriae, state's interest; res judicata bars private claims to same remedy)
- Sosa v. Safeway Premium Fin. Co., 73 So.3d 91 (Fla. 2011) (abuse of discretion standard; class certification factual findings reviewed; pure legal points de novo)
- London v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 840 F.3d 1246 (11th Cir. 2016) (common questions; deference to district court on certification; de novo review on purely legal issues)
- So. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Wilson, 305 So.2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975) (class action certification concerns; avoid punitive, merit-based, or burdensome proceedings)
- Liggett Group Inc. v. Engle, 853 So.2d 434 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (applied to related Engle framework; further developments in later Engle decisions)
- Castro v. Sun Bank of Bal Harbour, 370 So.2d 392 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (public interest considerations; private rights interplay in prior settlements)
- Satsky v. Paramount Commc’ns, Inc., 7 F.3d 1464 (10th Cir. 1993) (private damages considerations; distinguishing public interest actions from private injury claims)