Oscar Ortega v. Uponor, Inc.
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 11495
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- MDL consolidated actions against Uponor and Radiant for leaky brass fittings culminated in a November 2011 settlement.
- District court certified two settlement classes (Soggy and Cloggy), granted preliminary approval, and ordered notice (Jan 2012).
- Ortega moved to intervene and sought decertification in May 2012, arguing California law provided broader remedies and inadequate representation.
- Settlement releases broad liability for Uponor, Radiant, and related entities, and funds notice costs; independent administrator to resolve claims.
- Notice plan achieved widespread outreach with minimal opt-outs; district court granted final approval; Ortega and objectors appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was final approval abuse of discretion? | Ortega contends notice defects and California rights not represented. | Radiant and Uponor maintain notice adequate and representation sufficient; objections fail. | No abuse; four Van Horn factors support approval. |
| Does California Right of Repair Act affect representation? | Ortega claims Act provides broader remedy not captured by settlement. | Settlements and statute offer replacement costs; no antagonism among class members. | Not inadequately represented; Act not material to certification/approval. |
| Was Ortega's motion to intervene timely? | Ortega needed to preserve interests; delay prejudicial to class while appealing. | Intervention was untimely given stage and resources expended. | District court did not abuse discretion; intervention denied as untimely. |
| Was CAFA notice to state attorneys general adequate? | Notice failed to provide reasonable state-specific class estimates. | Notice reasonably complied; technical deficiencies do not void settlement. | CAFA notice meaningfully complied; not reversible on technical grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re BankAmerica Corp. Sec. Litig., 350 F.3d 747 (8th Cir. 2003) (abuse of discretion review for settlement approval)
- Petrovic v. Amoco Oil Co., 200 F.3d 1140 (8th Cir. 1999) (heightened scrutiny for settlement class definitions)
- Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (U.S. Supreme Court 1997) (class action settlement principles and certification concerns)
- Van Horn v. Trickey, 840 F.2d 604 (8th Cir. 1988) (Van Horn factors for settlement approval)
- Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski Cnty. Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) (presumption of settlement validity)
- DeBoer v. Mellon Mortg. Co., 64 F.3d 1171 (8th Cir. 1995) (adequacy of representation in class actions)
- ACLU of Minn. v. Tarek ibn Ziyad Acad., 643 F.3d 1088 (8th Cir. 2011) (timeliness factors for intervention)
- Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians v. Minnesota, 989 F.2d 994 (8th Cir. 1993) (standards for intervention timeliness)