83 So. 3d 1243
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- Plaintiffs Desselle and Dupuy claim Acadian Ambulance charged more than the contracted rate with the patients’ insurers for covered services.
- Acadian Ambulance appeals class certification, challenging the class definitions and statutory prerequisites.
- Trial court certified a class and two subclasses, defining who is included and when excess payments occurred.
- The class action was pursued under La. Code Civ. P. art. 591 for Billing Act violations (La.R.S. 22:1871 et seq.).
- Appellate review addresses commonality, typicality, adequacy, and the bifurcated requirements of Article 591(A) and (B).
- The court affirms the trial court’s certification under Article 591, finding predominance and superiority largely satisfied and the class definable and manageable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether amendment of class definitions after certification was proper | Desselle argued amendments were allowed with court permission. | Acadian contends amendments lacked proper leave/notice. | Amendment proper; no abuse of discretion. |
| Whether Article 591(A) prerequisites were met | Plaintiffs established numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, and ascertainability. | Acadian disputes commonality/typicality and adequacy. | Prerequisites satisfied; class certification affirmed. |
| Whether commonality was shown under 591(A)(2) | Common billing-policy issue affects all members. | Individual responses vary, undermining commonality. | Commonality shown; applicable to class. |
| Whether typicality was shown under 591(A)(3) | Representative claims arise from same policy and legal theory as class. | Representative’s experiences may differ from others. | Typicality satisfied. |
| Whether certification under 591(B)(3) (predominance/superiority) was proper | Single overarching issue (Billing Act violation) governs liability. | Issues may require individual damages trials. | Predominance and superiority satisfied; affirmance of certification. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dupree v. Lafayette Ins. Co., 51 So.3d 669 (La. 2010) (applies rigorous analysis standard for class actions and emphasizes predominance)
- Price v. Roy O. Martin, 79 So.3d 957 (La. 2011) (recognizes deference to rigorous certification analysis)
- Brooks v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 13 So.3d 546 (La. 2009) (addresses standards for class certification and commonality)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (requires commonality showing suitable for class-wide resolution)
- Andry v. Murphy Oil, USA, Inc., 710 So.2d 1121 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1998) (typicality and class representation concepts in Louisiana)