Ogg v. Mediacom, LLC.
382 S.W.3d 108
Mo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Appellants appeal the circuit court’s decertification of a ~1,400-member trespass class against Mediacom.
- Class representatives Gary and Janice Ogg were appointed; certification granted April 14, 2006.
- Trial on the Oggs’ damages yielded $8,863.50 compensatory and $35,000 punitive; prejudgment interest was denied.
- On remand, discovery through 47 test cases showed ownership and other issues vary by member, prompting decertification on April 22, 2011.
- Ogg v. Mediacom, L.L.C., 142 S.W.3d 801 (Mo.App.2004) held the license and scope for the easement were individualized, guiding the decertification analysis.
- Missouri Rule 52.08 requires predominance and manageability; the burden falls on the certifying party to show all requirements are met; the court monitored evidence and found individualized issues would predominate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the court abuse its discretion in decertifying the class for lack of predominance? | Oggs contend common issues predominate despite some individual concerns. | Med. argues standing, liability, and damages are individualized, defeating predominance. | No; district court acted within discretion; individual issues predominate and class cannot be maintained. |
| Is standing an individual issue that defeats commonality? | Resolution of ownership at time of trespass can be common if ownership questions are uniform. | Standing requires examination of deeds for each member; individualized. | Individual issue; standing would require per-member deed review, undermining class. |
| Is liability an individual issue that defeats predominance? | A uniform liability theory applies to all members due to unauthorized placement of cable. | Liability depends on each member’s property ownership and permissions; varies per member. | Individual issue; liability cannot be determined on a class-wide basis. |
| Whether prejudgment interest on Oggs’ damages should be awarded | Damages were readily ascertainable; interest should accrue despite lack of §408.040 demand. | Procedural requirements for §408.040 and liquidated damages must be met; interest denial was proper. | Granted; prejudgment interest awarded and remanded for calculation consistent with opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hope v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., 353 S.W.3d 68 (Mo.App. W.D.2011) (predominance standard for class actions; commonality requirement)
- Smith v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 289 S.W.3d 675 (Mo.App. W.D.2009) (abuse-of-discretion standard for decertification; manageability)
- McKeage v. Cordonnier, 357 S.W.3d 597 (Mo. banc 2012) (abuse of discretion in class certification decisions)
- Ogg v. Mediacom, L.L.C., 142 S.W.3d 801 (Mo.App.2004) (earlier holding on scope of licenses and prescriptive easements; individualized inquiries)
- Rois v. H.C. Sharp Co., 203 S.W.3d 761 (Mo.App. E.D.2006) (demonstrates demand for prejudgment interest can be satisfied without §408.040 strict compliance)
- Jablonski v. Barton Mut Ins. Co., 291 S.W.3d 345 (Mo.App. W.D.2009) (damages liquidated when ascertainable by computation)