Bobbitt v. Milberg, LLP
2012 WL 4125848
D. Ariz.2012Background
- Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class action for legal malpractice arising from a nationwide securities class action in the Underlying Case.
- District of Arizona dismissed state claims and allowed amendment; counsel elected to pursue federal claims only.
- Plaintiffs allege VALIC’s agents induced purchases of tax-sheltered annuities, causing overpayment and higher fees without benefit.
- District Court granted class certification in the Underlying Case but later decertified for failure to meet expert-disclosure deadlines; Ninth Circuit affirmed.
- This case seeks certification of the same nationwide class of plaintiffs and asserts state-based negligence and fiduciary-duty claims against former class counsel.
- The court analyzes Rule 23 requirements and conflicts-of-law issues under Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, focusing on Rule 23(b)(3).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 23(b)(3) is satisfied given multi-state choice-of-law issues | Plaintiffs argue a nationwide class can be certified under Rule 23(b)(3). | Milberg contends up to 50 states’ laws implicate the class and conflicts preclude predominance. | Denied; Rule 23(b)(3) not satisfied due to multiple-state law conflicts. |
| Whether the law of Arizona governs for the class action and related issues | Plaintiffs contend Arizona law applies as the law of the case. | Defendants argue Arizona law does not govern the nationwide class; Restatement factors favor multiple states. | Rejected; no single jurisdictional law applies; all fifty states implicated. |
| Whether the absent class members’ domicile or place of injury governs choice-of-law | Plaintiffs emphasize dominant Arizona or contract-related anchors. | Court should apply Restatement §145 with contacts weighed; domicile strongly relevant. | Weights favor applying laws of states where absent members are domiciled/injured; Arizona not controlling. |
| Whether the court should create subclasses or modify the approach to manage state-law variations | Plaintiffs propose sub-classing or alternative management to handle state differences. | Lack of sufficient analysis of state-law variations; no viable subclass plan presented. | Not addressed since Rule 23(b)(3) denied; subclass plan not established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (rigorous analysis required for class certification)
- Lozano v. AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., 504 F.3d 718 (9th Cir. 2007) (state-law variations relevant to predominance)
- Castano v. American Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734 (5th Cir. 1996) (common issues must predominate for certification)
- Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 83 F.3d 610 (3d Cir. 1996) (multistate class action considerations and variations in law)
- In re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 288 F.3d 1012 (7th Cir. 2002) (manageability and state-law variations affect certification)
- Spence v. Glock,, 227 F.3d 308 (5th Cir. 2000) (choice-of-law analysis required for multi-jurisdiction class)