Marcus v. BMW of North America, LLC
687 F.3d 583
| 3rd Cir. | 2012Background
- This is a putative class action about Bridgestone run-flat tires on BMWs sold/leased in New Jersey.
- Plaintiff Marcus alleged defects in Bridgestone RFTs and sued BMW and Bridgestone for NJCFA, breach of warranty, and contract issues.
- District Court certified a New Jersey subclass under Rule 23(b)(3) but not a nationwide class.
- Court remanded due to defects in class definition, ascertainability, and predominance analyses.
- Marcus’s claims center on whether the tires are unusually susceptible to road-hazard damage, unreparable, expensively replaceable, and non-reconfigurable for non-RFT use.
- Issue-centric proof and causation concerns threaten class-wide resolution given individual circumstances of tire failures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the New Jersey class is properly defined and ascertainable | Marcus seeks a NJ subclass defined by Bridgestone RFTs that flat and are replaced | BMW/Bridgestone contend the class is poorly defined and not ascertainable | Remand required for a clearly defined, ascertainable class |
| Whether numerosity was proven for Rule 23(a)(1) | Evidence shows many potential class members | Record only proves Marcus; no robust NJ-specific numerosity | District Court abused discretion on numerosity for the NJ class |
| Whether common questions predominate under Rule 23(b)(3) | Common defects and causation facts predominate across class | Individual causation will predominate; repair/diagnosis varies | Predominance not shown; class certification vacated for NJ claims |
| Whether NJCFA claims can be certified given knowability and causation nuances | Presumption of causation applies due to uniform omission | Knowledge before purchase varies; causation not uniform | Presumption insufficient without facts; predominate issues require individualized proof |
| Whether Marcus’s typicality and choice-of-law defenses defeat class treatment | Marcus’s claims arise from same conduct applying to class | NY law defenses and vehicle variety risk atypicality | Not resolved on remand; need factual findings on knowability and uniformity |
Key Cases Cited
- Int’l Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of Am. Welfare Fund v. Merck & Co., 929 A.2d 1076 (N.J. 2007) (presumption of causation and reactivity considerations for NJCFA class)
- Lee v. Carter-Reed Co., LLC, 4 A.3d 561 (N.J. 2010) (predominance and uniform reaction to information; validation of NJCFA class treatment in appropriate context)
- Varacallo v. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co., 752 A.2d 807 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2000) (evaluate knowability of fraud and uniform class reactions to determine predomination)
- In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig., 552 F.3d 305 (3d Cir. 2009) (rigorous Rule 23 analysis; weighing competing expert evidence at certification)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (Rule 23 requirements are not mere pleading rules; require factual conformance)
- Amchem Prod., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (U.S. 1997) (principles of predominance and class certification framework)