Melissa K. Little v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 17887
| 11th Cir. | 2012Background
- Jacqueline Robinson and Searcy Crawford sue T-Mobile USA, Inc. for state-law claims of conversion, trespass to chattels, and unjust enrichment.
- Plaintiffs allege lost/stolen phones were reported to T-Mobile and later reactivated for use by others on T-Mobile’s network without permission.
- Plaintiffs move for class certification of a nationwide class of persons who reported a phone lost or stolen within six years and were later allowed to be used by another on T-Mobile’s network.
- The district court denied class certification on five grounds: ascertainability, numerosity, predominance (state-law variation and waiver issues), damage-related individualized inquiries, and superiority.
- The court held that damage-related issues predominate, undermining Rule 23(b)(3) certification, and questioned the impact of potential arbitration/class-action waivers.
- This court affirms the denial of class certification, adopting the district court’s predominance ruling even if waiver issues are considered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did district court err by considering waiver defenses in ruling on certification? | T-Mobile did not waive arbitration/class waivers; error taints ruling. | Waiver issue not dispositive; other grounds control. | No reversible error; damages/predominance grounds sustain denial regardless. |
| Was the proposed class ascertainable and numerosity satisfied? | Class defined clearly; numerous potential members. | Evidence insufficient for ascertainability and numerosity. | Court affirmed rejection on ascertainability/numerosity grounds. |
| Do state-law variations destroy predominance under Rule 23(b)(3)? | Uniform issues predominate despite state-law differences. | Significant statewide variations defeat predominance. | Predominance defeated by state-law variation and damage-related issues. |
| Do damage-related individual issues predominate over common issues? | Damage assessment can be managed by nationwide methodology. | Individualized damages predominate; no common method viable. | Yes; damage-related issues predominate, precluding certification. |
| Was it superior to certify given the other factors? | Class action best method for efficient adjudication. | Superiority not satisfied due to manageability concerns and damages. | Superiority not met; class certification affirmed as inappropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- DeBremaecker v. Short, 433 F.2d 733 (5th Cir. 1970) (ascertainability prerequisite for Rule 23)
- John v. Nat’l Sec. Fire & Cas. Co., 501 F.3d 443 (5th Cir. 2007) (implied prerequisite of ascertainability under Rule 23)
- Valley Drug Co. v. Geneva Pharm., Inc., 350 F.3d 1181 (11th Cir. 2003) (identify and define class; commonality/adequacy under Rule 23(a))
- Pickett v. Iowa Beef Processors, 209 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2000) (common issues and predominance under Rule 23(b)(3))
- Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc affirmance; binding precedent posture)
- Hamilton v. Southland Christian Sch., Inc., 680 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2012) (waiver/abandonment and briefing standards on appeal)
- Holland v. Gee, 677 F.3d 1047 (11th Cir. 2012) (abandonment of issues for lack of briefing)
- Jernigan v. United States, 341 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2003) (issues not raised in opening brief deemed waived)
- Mesa Air Grp., Inc. v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 573 F.3d 1124 (11th Cir. 2009) (waiver/briefing limitations on appeal)
- SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 439 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2006) (briefs not raising issue abandon arguments)