Smith v. Interline Brands, Inc.
87 F. Supp. 3d 701
D.N.J.2014Background
- Plaintiff Kathy Smith filed a putative class action alleging Defendant Interline Brands distributes defective coupling nuts and moved for class certification one week after filing the complaint.
- Defendant had not yet filed an answer and the complaint had not been served when Plaintiff moved to certify the class.
- Plaintiff characterized her early filing as necessary to avoid a Rule 68 “pick-off” by which Defendant could moot her individual claim and prevent her from serving as class representative.
- Plaintiff asked the court to hold the certification motion in abeyance pending class discovery.
- The court found the motion lacked factual detail required by Rule 23 and treated the filing as premature under Third Circuit precedent permitting relation back only when certification is timely filed.
- The court dismissed the motion without prejudice, permitting refiling at an appropriate stage, and noted Rule 4.2 and prior sanctions authority addressing direct contact with putative class representatives.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Rule 23 motion filed contemporaneously with the complaint should be considered | Smith argued early filing prevents Rule 68 pick-off and requested certification or, alternatively, abeyance for discovery | Interline implicitly relied on standard Third Circuit practice requiring sufficient factual record and timely filing before certification | Denied as premature; motion dismissed without prejudice for refiling at an appropriate time |
| Whether Seventh Circuit practice permitting immediate certification motions controls | Smith relied on Seventh Circuit decisions to justify contemporaneous filing and delay | Interline and court noted Seventh Circuit rule is not binding in Third Circuit | Court rejected reliance on Seventh Circuit authority as inapplicable |
| Whether Third Circuit approach governs relation-back and timing | Smith sought to avoid mootness by early motion | Interline relied on Third Circuit’s Weiss framework requiring no undue delay before relating back | Court applied Weiss, finding premature filing inappropriate and relation-back not warranted here |
| Whether a placeholder Rule 23 motion is acceptable given Rule 11 and judicial economy concerns | Smith maintained necessity to avoid pick-off | Interline relied on principles of evidentiary support and judicial efficiency | Court emphasized Rule 11 and efficiency; criticized "straight-out-of-the-chute" motions as burdensome |
Key Cases Cited
- Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011) (discussing contemporaneous certification motions in Seventh Circuit)
- McMahon v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 744 F.3d 1010 (7th Cir. 2014) (Seventh Circuit rule on mooting class actions by offering full relief to representative)
- Weiss v. Regal Collections, 385 F.3d 337 (3d Cir. 2004) (Third Circuit framework for relating certification motions back when individual claim offers moot class relief)
- Church v. Accretive Health, Inc., 299 F.R.D. 676 (S.D. Ala. 2014) (criticizing early Rule 23 motions as administratively burdensome)
- Loatman v. Summit Bank, 174 F.R.D. 592 (D.N.J. 1997) (sanctions where defendant directly contacted putative class representative)