In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation
279 F.R.D. 598
D. Kan.2012Background
- Two Kansas multi-district cases (Wilson v. Ampride, 06-2582-KHV; American Fiber & Cabling v. BP, 07-2053-KHV) allege motor fuel sold without temperature disclosure, seeking unjust enrichment, KCPA, and civil conspiracy relief, plus injunctive relief and damages.
- The court had certified Rule 23(b)(2) classes for liability/injunctive relief but not damages, and later denied Rule 23(b)(3) damages certification.
- After Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes (2011), defendants moved to decertify and plaintiffs sought to redefine and certify liability aspects under Rules 23(b)(3) and (c)(4).
- The court redefined the classes to focus on current Kansas residents and entities who purchased fuel since December 31, 2003 without temperature disclosure, clarifying scope and notice considerations.
- The court determined Dukes did not require decertification and granted redefining and new certifications under 23(b)(3) and (c)(4) for liability and injunctive relief, while preserving bifurcated proceedings and injunctive relief.
- The court scheduled phased trial (Phase I: liability/injunctive elements; Phase II: injunctive/damages if liability proven), appointed class counsel, and approved a notice plan for identifying class members.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dukes necessitates decertification or redefining classes | Plaintiffs seek recalibration of class definitions to fit Dukes. | Dukes requires tighter commonality and limits on (b)(2) scope. | No decertification; redefine as (b)(3)/(c)(4) liability classes. |
| Consistency and ascertainability of the proposed class definitions | Definitions capture the injury premise without the 60°F limit. | Definitions are ill-defined and overbroad or inconsistent with pretrial order. | Adopted precise, presently ascertainable definitions with current Kansas residents. |
| Whether liability/injunctive relief can be certified under Rule 23(b)(3) with predominance | Liability elements and common injury can be proven classwide; damages may be separate. | Predominance lacking; risk of individualized issues. | Yes; liability/injunctive can be certified under 23(b)(3) with bifurcated plan. |
| Appropriateness of Rule 23(c)(4) issue classes for liability | Isolate common liability issues to advance resolution. | Issue classes may not predominate or advance efficiently. | Appropriate; issue classes certified for liability elements. |
| Adequacy of notice plan for Rule 23(b)(3) class | Need practicable notice to current Kansas residents. | Notice feasibility contested due to nationwide class members. | Notice plan approved as best practicable under circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (limits commonality; cautions against certifying on broad common questions)
- Gen. Tel. Co. of S.W. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (U.S. 1982) (rigorous analysis for class certification; commonality must be real)
- D.G. ex rel. Stricklin v. Devaughn, 594 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2010) (district court's broad discretion in class certification; need rigorous analysis)
- Shook v. El Paso Cnty., 386 F.3d 963 (10th Cir. 2004) (rigorous analysis; avoid conclusory allegations in class cert.)
- In re Nassau Cnty. Strip Search Cases, 461 F.3d 219 (2d Cir. 2006) (recognizes Rule 23(c)(4) isolation of common issues when appropriate)