Stammco, L.L.C. v. United Tel. Co. of Ohio
136 Ohio St. 3d 231
| Ohio | 2013Background
- UTO and Sprint defend against a class action over third-party charges (cramming) on Ohio customers' phone bills.
- Plaintiffs sought to certify a state-wide class under Civ.R. 23 alleging negligent billing, breach of implied duty of good faith, and unjust enrichment.
- The initial class definition was deemed not readily identifiable; Stammco I required remand to redefine the class.
- On remand, plaintiffs proposed an amended class definition focusing on lack of prior written authorization for third-party charges.
- The trial court rejected the amended definition as a fail-safe class and improper as to liability; the court of appeals reversed, certifying the amended class.
- The Ohio Supreme Court majority holds the amended class is overbroad and fails Civ.R. 23(B)(3) predominance, decertifying the class and remanding for proceedings consistent with the ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether rigorous analysis at class certification may include merits inquiry | Dukes/Amgen permit merits overlap for Civ.R. 23 | Eisen bars merits inquiry at certification | Rigorous analysis allowed, but amended class fails Civ.R. 23(B)(3) |
| Whether the amended class definition is overly broad | Amended definition clarifies permission and is not fail-safe | Amended class remains overbroad and not predominance-driven | Amended class overbroad and fails predominance; certification reversed |
| Whether individualized determinations prevent class certification | Database and methodology can identify unauthorized charges | Identifying authorization requires individualized determinations | Individualized determinations predominate; class not certifiable |
Key Cases Cited
- Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156 (1974) (merits inquiry barred at certification; cost of notice case)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (rigorous analysis may overlap merits; not a pleading standard; commonality focus)
- Amgen v. Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds, 133 S. Ct. 1194 (2013) (rigorous analysis; merits overlap limited to Rule 23 prerequisites)
- Stammco, L.L.C. v. United Tel. Co. of Ohio, 125 Ohio St.3d 91 (2010) (remand for class redefinition; individualized issues prominent)
- Ojalvo v. Ohio State Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 12 Ohio St.3d 230 (1984) (class certification cannot decide merits; supports probing merits under Civ.R. 23)
- Gen. Tel. Co. of Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (1982) (purpose of Rule 23 is to ensure efficiency and fairness; not mere pleading)