330 Conn. 40
Conn.2018Background
- Two consolidated class actions by service station operators (Kennynick, LLC and Faugno/Woodway Texaco) alleged Standard Petroleum overcharged customers by: charging federal gasoline tax at 18.4¢/gal without applying a federal ethanol tax credit (2005–2011) and by charging Connecticut gross receipts tax on price "as delivered," including profit and delivery.
- Plaintiffs asserted six causes of action (breach of contract, unjust enrichment, Connecticut Petroleum Franchise Act, CUTPA, UCC good-faith claim, misrepresentation) and sought damages and injunctive relief; they later narrowed damages (e.g., dropped lost profits).
- Defendant brought a separate breach action and pleaded special defenses; the suits were consolidated and plaintiffs moved for class certification after discovery.
- Trial court certified a class defined by four objective criteria (purchase period; charged 18.4¢ federal tax; did not receive federal credit; charged state gross receipts tax on delivered price) and appointed class representatives/counsel.
- Defendant appealed, arguing the trial court failed to apply the required "rigorous analysis" on numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, superiority, and failed to address individual elements and special defenses. The Supreme Court affirmed certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Numerosity | Class of ~81 identified customers is sufficiently numerous; arbitration/jury-waiver contract clauses not determinative now | Customers with arbitration/jury-waiver clauses should be excluded or defeat numerosity | Affirmed: premature to decide enforceability; remaining members satisfy numerosity; defendant did not contest court's finding |
| Commonality / Typicality | Common legal/factual questions (tax rate charged; failure to apply federal credit; state tax on delivered price); representatives' claims align with class | Differences (written v. oral contracts) make representative claims atypical; need individualized proofs | Affirmed: common questions exist; typicality met—shared central issues despite contractual variations; alternative pleading of contract/unjust enrichment acceptable |
| Adequacy (representatives) | Former customers can adequately represent both former and current customers; opt-out protects class | Former franchisees lack stake and may have conflicts with current franchisees; unique issues (e.g., defendant's prejudice) | Affirmed: no fundamental conflict shown; differences not so substantial to defeat adequacy; court may revisit if conflict later appears |
| Predominance (Rule 9-8) | Common issues (defendant records, invoices, contracts) permit generalized proof on liability and formulas for damages; individualized issues manageable | Many claim elements, defenses, and damages require individualized proof (performance, breach, franchise status, misrepresentation, defenses) defeating predominance | Affirmed: trial court conducted sufficient three-part predominance inquiry; common issues predominate because liability proof rests largely on defendant's uniform records and invoices; individualized issues do not outweigh common questions |
| Special defenses | Plaintiffs: defenses were conclusory and unsupported; defendant failed to put forward factual basis at certification stage | Defendant: asserted defenses (waiver, estoppel, mitigation, mistake, laches, etc.) will require individualized inquiries and defeat predominance | Affirmed: defendant did not present factual basis for defenses at certification; courts need not treat bare legal conclusions as defeating predominance; plaintiffs met burden to show common proofs |
| Damages (individualized) | Plaintiffs provided common formulas/mechanisms to compute individual damages from class-wide records | Defendant argued individualized lost-profit damages and calculations would predominate | Affirmed: plaintiffs dropped lost-profit claims and proposed common damage formulas; individualized calculations alone do not preclude certification |
| Superiority | Class adjudication is superior given common records and efficiency | Defendant argued class mechanism unnecessary and management problems exist | Affirmed: interconnected with predominance; class is superior and manageable; trial court within discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Neighborhood Builders, Inc. v. Madison, 294 Conn. 651 (Conn. 2010) (sets two-step Practice Book §§9-7 and 9-8 class-certification framework)
- Collins v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc., 275 Conn. 309 (Conn. 2005) (rigorous analysis requirement and deference to trial court on class certification)
- General Telephone Co. of the Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (U.S. 1982) (commonality/rigorous-analysis guidance)
- Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (U.S. 2013) (rigorous analysis may overlap with merits)
- Artie's Auto Body, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 287 Conn. 208 (Conn. 2008) (common issues predominate where evidence derives from defendant's records)
- In re Initial Public Offerings Sec. Litig., 471 F.3d 24 (2d Cir. 2006) (predominance involves comparative assessment of common vs. individualized issues)
- Myers v. Hertz Corp., 624 F.3d 537 (2d Cir. 2010) (courts must consider defenses in predominance analysis)
- In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig., 552 F.3d 305 (3d Cir. 2008) (trial courts have broad discretion but must find each certification requirement met)
- Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 136 S. Ct. 1036 (U.S. 2016) (class action proper where central common issues predominate despite some individualized matters)