Frazier v. Castle Ford, Ltd., 59 A.3d 1016

Frazier filed a Montgomery County circuit court class action against Crystal Ford Isuzu (sale of an extended warranty misrepresented as lasting 48 months/100,000 miles).
Complaint alleged MD residents who bought Crystal Ford warranties in the prior four years as the putative class; asserted unfair/deceptive trade practices and common-law fraud; sought damages, relief, punitive damages, and fees.
After filing, Crystal Ford tendered to extend Frazier’s warranty and reimbursed his repair costs, which he did not cash.
Circuit Court denied class certification, finding Frazier had been made whole and that certification was inappropriate; later proceedings addressed fees.
Interlocutory appeals led to a Court of Special Appeals decision affirming to some extent, with the Court of Appeals granting certiorari to review whether a pre-certification tender moots a class action and related issues.
The Court ultimately held that a pre-certification tender does not automatically moot the class action or bar punitive damages, and remanded for proper Rule 2-231 analysis; it also upheld fee recovery for post-tender efforts under the Consumer Protection Act.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does pre-certification tender moot a class action?	Frazier argues tender moots the class action.	Crystal Ford argues tender eliminates any live class claims.	No; remand for proper 2-231 analysis.
May punitive damages be awarded after a tender of compensatory damages?	Punitive damages remain possible if supported by facts, despite tender.	Tender of compensatory damages precludes punitive on the fraud count.	No automatic bar; not foreclosed; depend on facts.
Is attorney’s fees under the Consumer Protection Act limited to pre-tender fees?	Fees may include post-tender efforts that produced results.	Fees should reflect pre-tender work only? (tender limits)	Fees may cover post-tender efforts consistent with CA statute and jurisprudence.
Should the case be remanded to reconsider class certification on proper grounds?	Certification criteria under Rule 2-231 should be reconsidered.	Mootness pre-certification supports dismissal; certification needed anew.	Remanded for court to assess timely certification and Rule 2-231 criteria.

Deposit Guaranty Nat’l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326 (U.S. 1980) (class action rule rationale for aggregation of small claims)
Creveling v. GEICO, 376 Md. 72 (Md. 2003) (standard of review and mootness considerations in class actions)
Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2011) (pre-certification offers of judgment may not moot a class action)