Satterfield v. Ameritech Mobile Communications, Inc.
2017 Ohio 928
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs (Cindy Satterfield, Highland Speech Services, and Intermessage) sued Ameritech and others alleging Ameritech’s discriminatory wholesale pricing to its affiliated retail operations inflated retail cellular prices in Ohio. The complaint relied on the PUCO’s prior finding of price discrimination in the Cellnet proceeding.
- The PUCO found Ameritech and Verizon engaged in unlawful price discrimination; the Ohio Supreme Court later clarified the relevant time frame for liability.
- Plaintiffs pleaded treble damages under R.C. 4905.61; other common-law claims were dismissed as R.C. 4905.61 was the exclusive remedy.
- By the time of certification, only Intermessage’s claim against Ameritech for conduct from October 18, 1993 through September 8, 1995 remained. Intermessage had dissolved but filed suit within statutory winding-up periods.
- The trial court certified a Civ.R. 23(B)(3) class of all retail Ameritech subscribers with Ohio area codes in geographic areas where the PUCO found discrimination during the 1993–1995 period; Ameritech appealed class certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of dissolved Intermessage to represent class | Intermessage retained the claim on dissolution and filed within winding-up period; R.C. 1701.88 permits prosecution of existing claims | Intermessage assigned or lost the claim on dissolution and/or failed to wind up "as speedily as practicable" so lacks standing | Court held Intermessage had standing: claim remained an asset and suit was timely under R.C. 1701.88 and statutes of limitations |
| Class includes uninjured persons / passing-on defense | Intermessage’s injury arises from same unlawful conduct that affected all retail subscribers; passed-on costs do not negate injury or typicality | Ameritech argued many class members (or Intermessage) were not injured because costs were passed on, so typicality and injury lacking | Court held typicality satisfied; passing-on does not defeat typicality and injury is common to class |
| Predominance (common liability and damages model) | Common liability issues (market effect, proximate cause) predominate; expert identified feasible class-wide damages models (McFadden/Woroch) even if adaptation needed | Ameritech argued individualized issues and Comcast require a damages model tied to liability at certification stage | Court held common liability questions predominate; damages model need not be exact at certification and Comcast does not mandate denying certification here |
| Superiority of class action | Class adjudication avoids thousands of duplicative suits, is efficient and enables vindication of small claims | Individual suits would be required; individualized damages counseling against class | Court held class action is superior and efficient for resolving liability and administering damages later |
Key Cases Cited
- Westside Cellular, Inc. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 98 Ohio St.3d 165 (Ohio 2002) (Clarified timing of PUCO liability and the relevant period for economic injury)
- Cincinnati SMSA L.P. v. Pub. Util. Comm'n of Ohio, 98 Ohio St.3d 282 (Ohio 2002) (PUCO decision and appeals context regarding carrier obligations)
- Cleveland Mobile Radio Sales, Inc. v. Verizon Wireless, 113 Ohio St.3d 394 (Ohio 2007) (R.C. 4905.61 requires PUCO finding before common-pleas damages action)
- Hamilton v. Ohio Sav. Bank, 82 Ohio St.3d 67 (Ohio 1998) (trial court’s class-certification role and requirement for rigorous Civ.R. 23 analysis)
- Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (U.S. 2013) (limits on damages models at certification when disconnected from liability theory)
- Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe Mach. Corp., 392 U.S. 481 (U.S. 1968) (passing-on defense does not negate injury for antitrust/overcharge claims)