Jermyn v. Best Buy Stores, L.P.
276 F.R.D. 167
S.D.N.Y.2011Background
- Defendant Best Buy moved to decertify the plaintiff class after Dukes, arguing Rule 23 requirements were not met.
- The court previously certified a Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive class and a separate Rule 23(b)(3) damages class concerning violations of New York General Business Law and price matching.
- Plaintiffs allege a centralized Anti-Price Matching Policy contrary to Best Buy’s Price Match Guarantee and seek classwide relief.
- Dukes held that commonality may be lacking where there is no general corporate policy causing uniform discrimination, prompting reevaluation of class certification.
- The court reexamined commonality, ascertainability, and the interplay between (b)(2) and (b)(3) certifications in light of Dukes and concluded the original certification remains appropriate.
- The court ultimately denied Best Buy’s motion to decertify.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Dukes undermine commonality for this class? | Jermyn argues Dukes does not defeat commonality here because an illegal centralized policy ties class members. | Best Buy contends Dukes shows lack of commonality due to no uniform discriminatory policy. | Dukes does not destroy commonality; common question exists. |
| Is there a common question sufficient to support Rule 23(a)(2) under GBL claims? | Plaintiffs assert a centralized Anti-Price Matching Policy affects all members. | Dukes requires a general discriminatory policy and significant proof of it. | Yes, substantial proof of the illegal policy provides a common question. |
| Is the Rule 23(b)(2) class improper due to monetary relief considerations? | No, the (b)(2) class seeks injunctive relief only; damages are in a separate (b)(3) class. | Monetary claims could contaminate the (b)(2) certification. | Properly separated; (b)(2) remains valid while (b)(3) handles damages. |
| Does Dukes require decertification of the Rule 23(b)(3) damages class? | Damages class remains appropriate where common questions predominate in liability and damages are separable. | Dukes casts doubt on classwide damages claims under a common policy. | Damages class remains certified under (b)(3) with liability trial to determine policy existence. |
| Would reexamination have altered the outcome, given intervening authority? | Intervening authority supports continued certification because policy exists and ties class members. | Dukes undermines prior certification grounds. | Intervening authority does not warrant decertification. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Karadzic, 192 F.R.D. 133 (S.D.N.Y.2000) (court may revisit certification for significant intervening events)
- In re Grand Theft Auto Video Game Consumer Litigation, 251 F.R.D. 139 (S.D.N.Y.2008) (decertification in light of intervening circuit decision)
- Falcon, General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (U.S. 1982) (two avenues to commonality: discriminatory testing or general policy)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (Supreme Court 2011) (universal commonality requirement and limits on b(2) with monetary claims)
- Sirota v. Solitron Devices, Inc., 673 F.2d 566 (2d Cir.1982) (standard for decertification when Rule 23 requirements not met)
- Monaco v. Stone, 187 F.R.D. 50 (E.D.N.Y.1999) (decertification when later events negate certification reasons)
- Jermyn I, 256 F.R.D. 418 (S.D.N.Y.2009) (initial class certification and commonality in price matching case)
- Jermyn VI, 2011 WL 2119725 (S.D.N.Y. May 24, 2011) (prior rulings on policy existence and certification posture)
- Robinson v. Metro-North Commuter R.R. Co., 267 F.3d 147 (2d Cir.2001) (precedent on predominance and individualized relief)
- U.S. v. City of New York, 276 F.R.D. 22 (E.D.N.Y.2011) (ascertainability and certification standards relevance)