Richard Grandalski v. Quest Diagnostics Inc
767 F.3d 175
| 3rd Cir. | 2014Background
- Appellants allege Quest Diagnostics routinely overbilled patients; district court denied class certification for four proposed classes and granted Cassese summary judgment on NY GBL §349 claim.
- Heart of the case: whether Quest’s bills exceeded amounts stated on EOBs/ERAs and whether nationwide class treatment is feasible for state-law claims.
- District Court denied certification for the Post-EOB Billing Class and the Anthem BCBS FEHB Program Class as to state-law consumer fraud and unjust enrichment claims.
- Debt Collector Victim Class (FDCPA) was narrowed to prong (ii); district court found proposed representative lacked written demands, denying certification.
- After denial of class certification, Cassese proceeded individually; summary judgment granted against her on NY GBL §349 claim for lack of pecuniary or non-pecuniary harm evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prematurity of choice-of-law analysis at certification | Sullivan en banc prohibits COA at certification for non-settlement classes. | Because these are multi-state trial-planning issues, COA at certification is appropriate to manage variability. | Not abuse; COA at certification proper for trial-class. |
| Correctness of Restatement § 148(2) application | Home-state law governs under § 148(2) factors for reliance, receipt, and performance. | New Jersey law controls due to place of making representations. | Home-state law governs under § 148(2) factors; district court’s weighing largely aligns with Maniscalco. |
| Workability of grouping state laws for chronicled claims | State fraud laws can be grouped into two categories for trial purposes. | Grouping not sufficiently demonstrated; too little analysis to justify workable groups. | Grouping not shown; many variances prevent universal application; certification denied for those classes on state-law claims. |
| Unjust enrichment class certification | Predominance and ascertainability satisfied due to common misbilling conduct. | Individualized inquiries would predominate; ascertainability undermined. | Denial affirmed; class-wide unjust enrichment claims not certifiable. |
| Debt Collector Victim Class (FDCPA) certification | Second prong viable if representative could be found. | Grandalski lacked written demands; not an adequate representative; cannot certify. | Certification denied for the FDCPA prong; narrowed class not certifiable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sullivan v. DB Investments, Inc., 667 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2011) (en banc decision on when choice-of-law issues are appropriate at certification)
- Maniscalco v. Brother Int’l (USA) Corp., 709 F.3d 202 (3d Cir. 2013) ( Restatement §148(2) factors determine applicable law; guidance over §148(1))
- In re LifeUSA Holding Inc., 242 F.3d 136 (3d Cir. 2001) (example of considering choice-of-law impact on predominance)
- Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 83 F.3d 610 (3d Cir. 1996) (restatement approach to varying issues in multi-state class actions)
- Klay v. Humana, Inc., 382 F.3d 1241 (11th Cir. 2004) (grouping state laws requires substantial demonstration of uniformity)
- Marcus v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 687 F.3d 583 (3d Cir. 2012) (ascertainability vs. predominance in class actions; harm must be identifiable)
- Hayes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 725 F.3d 349 (3d Cir. 2013) (predominance and commonality in class actions; interpretation of common questions)
- Agostino v. Quest Diagnostics Inc., 256 F.R.D. 437 (D.N.J. 2009) (earlier denial of certification for related classes)
- Oswego Laborers’ Local 214 Pension Fund v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A., 85 N.Y.2d 20 (N.Y. 1995) (standing of damages under NY GBL §349)