James D. Hinson Electrical Contracting Co. v. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc.
275 F.R.D. 638
M.D. Fla.2011Background
- Hinson and Jensen damaged BellSouth's underground facilities; they challenge BellSouth's bills as including nonrecoverable overhead/claims processing charges.
- Plaintiffs seek to certify a Florida class under the Underground Facility Damage Prevention and Safety Act for bills paid June 28, 2003 to certification.
- Proposed class excludes BellSouth officers, claim releases, and those with arbitration agreements; claims span four theories: FDUTPA, fraud, unjust enrichment, and money had and received.
- BellSouth asserted counterclaims for damages above amounts collected, but most were dismissed; remaining compulsory counterclaims against named plaintiffs are addressed.
- Court analyzes Rule 23 prerequisites and ultimately certifies the class under Rule 23(b)(3) with potential damages subclassing and notices to be approved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Numerosity satisfied under Rule 23(a)(1)? | Hinson/Jensen show >6,500 members, impracticable to joinder. | BellSouth does not dispute numerosity; cites potential manageability concerns. | Yes; numerosity satisfied. |
| Commonality exists under Rule 23(a)(2)? | BellSouth bills uniformly charged overhead/claims processing; common issues arise. | Some class members know indirect costs were charged; individualized issues may arise. | Yes; common questions predominate in core claims. |
| Typicality under Rule 23(a)(3)? | Named plaintiffs’ claims arise from the same billing pattern and legal theories as class. | Differences in damages/knowledge could undermine typicality. | Yes; claims arise from same conduct and legal theories. |
| Adequacy under Rule 23(a)(4)? | Named plaintiffs and counsel adequately represent the class; no substantial conflicts. | One-Call members may have conflicting interests. | Adequate; no fundamental conflict shown; One-Call concerns do not defeat class. |
| Predominance and superiority under Rule 23(b)(3)? | Common proof on deceptive practices and damages predominates; class action superior. | Some individualized damages and set-offs may predominate; manageability concerns exist. | Predominance and superiority satisfied; damages-focused issues manageable; class certification granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Murray v. Auslander, 244 F.3d 807 (11th Cir.2001) (commonality requires a common issue likely to affect many members)
- Williams v. Mohawk Indus., Inc., 568 F.3d 1350 (11th Cir.2009) (commonality and predominance considerations for class certification)
- Klay v. Humana, Inc., 382 F.3d 1241 (11th Cir.2004) (predominance requires common issues that outweigh individual ones)
- Valley Drug Co. v. Geneva Pharm., Inc., 350 F.3d 1181 (11th Cir.2003) (court must conduct its own Rule 23 inquiry)
- Allapattah Servs., Inc. v. Exxon Corp., 333 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir.2003) (damages issues do not automatically defeat class certification; common liability can prevail)