Hayes v. Wal-Mart, 281 F.R.D. 203

Plaintiff William Hayes seeks to certify a New Jersey class under Rule 23 for claims arising from Sam’s Club Service Plans purchased for as-is products.
Defendant Wal‑Mart Stores Inc. d/b/a Sam’s Club allegedly marketed and sold Service Plans for as-is items without disclosing exclusion from coverage.
Sam’s Club uses orange-sticker “as-is” items and maintains an Orange Sticker Price Override Log at each store; the log records designation as as‑is but not sales.
N.E.W. (National Electronics Warranty Corp.) trains staff to sell the Service Plans and the terms exclude as‑is products; the Plan terms are uniform across locations.
Hayes bought a Service Plan with a power washer (Aug. 7, 2008) and a Service Plan with a TV (July 1, 2009); both were as‑is items and both plans allegedly excluded coverage; Hayes alleges he was not informed of the exclusion.
The court grants class certification for the first Service Plan (power washer) under Rule 23, but finds the second Service Plan (television) moot because it was honored and Hayes was made whole.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the class is ascertainable and properly defined.	Hayes argues the class is ascertainable as all NJ buyers of as‑is Service Plans.	Sam’s Club argues the class is overbroad and not ascertainable because it cannot determine which overrides involved as‑is items.	Amended class definition made it readily ascertainable.
Whether the class satisfies Rule 23(a) requirements.	Hayes contends numerosity, typicality, commonality, and adequacy are met.	Defendant asserts potential members are too uncertain and questions predominate.	Numerosity, typicality, and adequacy satisfied for the first plan; commonality encompassed by predominance.
Whether common questions predominate under Rule 23(b)(3).	Claims can be proven by common evidence due to uniform conduct.	Individual issues regarding damages and eligibility may predominate.	Predominance satisfied for NJCFA, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment as to the first plan.
Whether the class action is superior to individual actions.	Class treatment efficiently adjudicates numerous small claims.	Individual suits would be manageable but costly.	Class action is superior for the first plan claims.
Whether Hayes’ Second Service Plan claim is moot and can be certified.	Some live issue remains for certification.	Second plan is moot as service was performed and Hayes was made whole.	Second Plan claims are moot; certification denied for that portion.

Beck v. Maximus, Inc., 457 F.3d 291 (3d Cir. 2006) (class certification requires more than pleading; common issues must predominate)
In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litigation, 552 F.3d 305 (3d Cir. 2008) (predominance requires common proof for elements through class treatment)
Amchem Prods. v. Windsor, 521 F.3d 591 (3d Cir. 1997) (predominance and superiority considerations for settlement classes)