Geri Siano Carriuolo v. General Motors Company
823 F.3d 977
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiffs (Carriuolo and Bracchi) sued GM under Florida’s FDUTPA (and other claims) after 2014 Cadillac CTS Monroney window stickers inaccurately showed three five‑star NHTSA safety ratings when no ratings had been issued at time of sale. GM later acknowledged the error and sent corrected labels.
- Plaintiffs sought certification of multiple classes; the district court certified a Florida class of purchasers/lessees of 2014 CTS sedans with the inaccurate sticker and denied other class proposals.
- Plaintiffs’ FDUTPA theory: the false sticker was a deceptive practice that allowed GM to command a price premium; damages measure is diminution in market value (benefit‑of‑the‑bargain), not out‑of‑pocket loss.
- GM challenged class certification under Rule 23, arguing lack of commonality/predominance, superiority, and adequacy (individualized reliance, varying damages, fleet sales, resale differences).
- The district court found common liability questions and that Rule 23(b)(3) predominance and superiority were satisfied; the Eleventh Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Commonality (Rule 23(a)(2)) | The inaccurate standardized sticker presents a single, classwide question: would an objectively reasonable consumer be deceived? | Individual differences (awareness, negotiation, subjective reliance) defeat common issues. | Affirmed: single common question of whether the sticker was deceptive satisfies commonality. |
| Predominance (Rule 23(b)(3)) | Liability (deceptive act) and damages (market‑value diminution) are capable of classwide resolution; reliance is objective under FDUTPA. | Individualized inquiries into who saw the sticker, subjective reliance, and individualized damages will overwhelm common issues. | Affirmed: common liability question predominates; damages model (benefit‑of‑the‑bargain) aligns with liability, so individualized damages do not defeat predominance. |
| Superiority (Rule 23(b)(3)) | Class action is superior because individual claims are small and common issues predominate, making class treatment efficient. | Individual actions or other procedures preferred due to individual issues. | Affirmed: class action is superior given number of Florida vehicles and efficiency concerns. |
| Adequacy/Typicality (Rule 23(a)(3),(4)) | Proposed representative (Carriuolo) shares the same objective claims and lacks fundamental conflicts with class members. | Conflicts among class (fleet vs. retail purchasers; resale timing; differing sophistication) undermine adequacy. | Affirmed: no fundamental conflict apparent; potential issues can be managed or addressed by subclasses; adequacy satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vega v. T‑Mobile USA, Inc., 564 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2009) (standard of appellate review for class certification decisions)
- Babineau v. Fed. Express Corp., 576 F.3d 1183 (11th Cir. 2009) (district court’s class certification will not be disturbed if within Rule 23’s parameters)
- Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013) (damages model must be consistent with liability theory for classwide adjudication)
- Fitzpatrick v. Gen. Mills, Inc., 635 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 2011) (FDUTPA class certification considerations; distinguishing reliance and damages models)
- Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) (predominance requirement ensures class cohesiveness for representation)
- Rollins, Inc. v. Heller, 454 So. 2d 580 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984) (FDUTPA damages measured by difference in market value of product as delivered vs. as promised)
- Collins v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 894 So. 2d 988 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004) (diminution in market value is proper FDUTPA damages metric where product is defective)
- Davis v. Powertel, Inc., 776 So. 2d 971 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000) (FDUTPA does not require proof of individual actual reliance)