HAGGART v. ENDOGASTRIC SOLUTIONS, INC, 2:10-cv-00346

Plaintiff alleges Endogastric Solutions misrepresented EsophyX reversibility/revisability to induce EsophyX procedures.
Plaintiff underwent EsophyX in Pittsburgh (June 2009) relying on Defendant’s marketing and physician communications.
Procedure later failed; surgeon recommended Nissen Fundoplication in February 2010.
Plaintiff learned reversibility was only revisable, constraining other treatment options.
Plaintiff seeks class certification; the court denies certification after Rule 23 analysis.
Court analyzes proposed class definitions for ascertainability, numerosity, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and manageability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are the alternative class definitions ascertainable and numerosity-sufficient?	Haggart argues the reversibility/revisability class is definable and numerous.	Endogastric contends the class is unascertainable and numerosity is not shown.	Not objectively ascertainable; numerosity not shown.
Is the EsophyX procedure class (all who underwent EsophyX) typical?	Plaintiff claims typical harm and common misrepresentations across class.	Defendant argues diverse information, injury, and reliance defeat typicality.	Typicality not established; harms vary and reliance issues differ.
Does the case fit Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive relief provision?	Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against future representations.	Relief sought is primarily monetary; not primarily injunctive.	Rule 23(b)(2) inapplicable; relief not primarily injunctive.
Do Rule 23(b)(3) predominance and superiority requirements hold?	Common questions predominate; class is superior for efficiency.	Individualized issues on information, reliance, and injury prevent predominance; manageability concerns too.	Neither predominance nor superiority satisfied; certification denied.

Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682 (Supreme Court, 1979) (class actions suited when issues are common to the class)
Gen. Tel. Co. of the Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (Supreme Court, 1982) (class certification requires Rule 23 prerequisites)
Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (Supreme Court, 1997) (leadership and typicality considerations in class actions)
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (Supreme Court, 2011) (commonality and class-wide proveability; class not certified when appropriate)
In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig., 552 F.3d 305 (3d Cir., 2008) (predominance and common questions analysis in Third Circuit)
In re Schering Plough Corp. ERISA Litig., 589 F.3d 585 (3d Cir., 2009) (typicality and adequacy considerations in class actions)
Newton v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 259 F.3d 154 (3d Cir., 2001) (typicality and commonality related to class actions)
In re Warfarin Sodium Antitrust Litig., 391 F.3d 516 (3d Cir., 2004) (standard for class certification and common questions)
In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. Sales Practices Litig., 148 F.3d 283 (3d Cir., 1998) (prudential factors affecting certification and ascertainability)