290 F.R.D. 19
D.P.R.2013Background
- Plaintiffs are the Puerto Rico College of Dental Surgeons and nine licensed dentists; the College is a government-created entity with most dentists in Puerto Rico as members.
- Plaintiffs allege a broad pattern of contract-based practices by twenty-two insurers harming dentists’ payments under their provider contracts.
- Defendants submitted varying contracts and practices, including differences in arbitration clauses, payment timelines, and coding practices.
- Plaintiffs moved for class certification; the court ordered simultaneous briefing and denied certification for a class.
- Evidence from defendants shows substantial contract-by-contract and provider-by-provider differences, challenging the notion of a common, class-wide injury.
- The court analyzes Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) requirements, focusing on commonality and predominance, and concludes the case is dentist-specific and not suitable for class treatment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether commonality is satisfied under Rule 23(a)(2) and Wal‑Mart | Plaintiff argues there are class-wide breaches recurring across providers. | Defendants contend the claims are too individualized due to varied contracts and defenses. | Commonality not satisfied. |
| Whether predominance is satisfied under Rule 23(b)(3) | Plaintiff asserts common questions predominate due to class-wide practices. | Defendants argue individualized proof would predominate due to contract-by-contract differences. | Predominance not satisfied. |
| Whether numerosity is satisfied under Rule 23(a)(1) | Large numbers of potential class members and claims show impractical joinder. | No evidence of how many putative class members actually have viable claims. | Numerosity not dispositive; court still denies certification due to other failing elements. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (commonality requires classwide resolution capable issues; need common answers)
- In Re New Motor Vehicles, 522 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 2008) (defines Rule 23(a) threshold and 23(b)(3) predominance framework)
- Klay v. Humana, Inc., 382 F.3d 1241 (11th Cir. 2004) (breach-of-contract claims require individualized proof; no common issues)
- Rodriguez‑Feliciano v. Puerto Rico Electric Power Auth., 240 F.R.D. 36 (D.P.R. 2007) (illustrates insufficiency of bold, unsupported classwide injury assertions)
- In re Puerto Rican Cabotage Antitrust Litig., 269 F.R.D. 125 (D.P.R. 2010) (detailed common issues in antitrust; not applicable here due to lack of common conspiracy)
- Windisch v. Hometown Health Plan, Inc., 2011 WL 4758715 (D. Nev. 2011) (down-coding claim lacked common proof; class not certified)