272 F.R.D. 205
W.D. Ky.2011Background
- Corder moves to certify a nationwide class under Rule 23(b)(3) for purchasers of 2004 Ford F-Series Super Duty trucks with 6.0L Power Stroke engines before Oct. 1, 2003.
- Ford produced 2004 engines beginning Oct. 1, 2003; some 2004 trucks used 2003.25 engines lacking 2004 improvements.
- Corder’s truck (assembled Sept. 2003) allegedly lacked at least 30 improvements of the 2004 engines; Ford did not disclose ongoing engine modifications.
- Plaintiff relies on Kentucky Consumer Protection Act (KCPA); district court granted summary judgment; Sixth Circuit reversed, allowing some deceptive practices theories to proceed.
- Corder seeks to apply Kentucky law class-wide, contending uniform application is appropriate; Ford contends choice-of-law issues preclude class-wide Kentucky application.
- Court conducts a choice-of-law analysis (Shutts framework and Restatement § 188) and concludes Kentucky law cannot uniformly govern the nationwide class; state-law differences create manageability concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May Kentucky law apply to the nationwide class? | Corder argues Kentucky law should govern all class claims. | Ford argues choice-of-law precludes uniform Kentucky application across states. | Kentucky law cannot be applied class-wide; apply laws of states where purchases occurred. |
| Does choice-of-law preclude predominance under Rule 23(b)(3)? | Uniform Kentucky law would simplify common questions. | State-law differences defeat common questions and predominate. | Predominance not satisfied; varying state laws hinder commonality and predominance. |
| Is a nationwide KCPA class proper given state-law variations? | KCPA-like analyses are uniform across states so nationwide certification is viable. | State consumer-protection statutes differ in reliance, scienter, and recoverability, making nationwide certification inappropriate. | Nationwide KCPA class not proper; apply multiple states’ laws. |
| Are issues of manageability and superiority satisfied for a nationwide class? | Some common questions exist and certification would be efficient. | Managing dozens of state laws and individualized inquiries is unmanageable. | Class action not a superior method; manageability concerns defeat certification. |
| Should the class be revised or limited to specific jurisdictions instead of nationwide? | Uniform Kentucky law is appropriate for all class members. | Limit or tailor to jurisdictions with meaningful contacts. | Court declines nationwide certification; implies state-by-state approach would be required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797 (1985) (choice-of-law in multi-state class actions requires significant state interests)
- Gen. Tel. Co. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (1982) (rigorous Rule 23 analysis and class-action discretion)
- Cross v. Nat’l Trust Life Ins. Co., 553 F.2d 1026 (6th Cir. 1977) (court’s discretion in class certification and commonality)
- In re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 288 F.3d 1012 (7th Cir. 2002) (state-law differences in consumer-protection acts affect certification)
- Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) (idiosyncratic state statutes may not justify nationwide class)
- Siegel v. Shell Oil Co., 256 F.R.D. 580 (N.D. Ill. 2008) (choice-of-law considerations in nationwide consumer actions)
- Ysbrand v. DaimlerChrysler, 81 P.3d 618 (Okla. 2003) (most significant relationship in UCC context; not controlling here)
- Lyon v. Caterpillar, Inc., 194 F.R.D. 206 (E.D. Pa. 2000) (state-law variations affect consumer-protection class analysis)