2:07-cv-00208
E.D. Tenn.Aug 25, 2011Background
- Plaintiffs seek reconsideration of the court's July 28, 2011 order decertifying the DFA subclass in the DFA interclass action.
- The court found an interclass conflict between independent dairy farmers and DFA members that precluded certification of a single class.
- Plaintiffs argue the evidentiary record does not support the conflict finding and that decertification is overbroad.
- The court conducted a Rule 23 analysis with some merits overlap consistent with Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, and rejected a merits-only approach to certification.
- The court's decision rests on a finding of conflict of interest between DFA members and independent farmers, applying Beattie and related authority to Rule 23 requirements.
- The motion to reconsider was denied; the conflict-exclusion applies to both current and former DFA members.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is an interclass conflict precluding one class representation | Frazier/McCain declarations show no DFA benefit, no broad conflict. | Conflict exists between independent farmers and DFA members, justifying decertification. | Yes; court kept the decertification due to interclass conflict. |
| Whether merits considerations invalidly influenced class certification | Merits were not properly considered; improper to weigh benefits to DFA members. | Some merits analysis is inherent to Rule 23 determinations after Dukes. | Merits-informed rigorous analysis permissible; hearing upheld. |
| Whether the declarations addressed all challenged conduct | Declarations address only full supply agreements, not all conduct. | Declaration scope is sufficient to show conflicting interests relevant to certification. | Declarations suffice to support a conflict finding; does not require every conduct element. |
| Whether former DFA members should be excluded or included in the class | Former DFA members should be allowed to remain in the class. | Conflict persists for former DFA members; exclusion proper. | Conflict applicable to both current and former DFA members; decertification upheld. |
| Whether the court erred in treating certain descriptive evidence as binding | Evidence shows DFA members benefit from full supply agreements. | Evidence is conflicting and not dispositive of benefits; may show benefits or harms depending on perspective. | Conflicting evidence does not undermine the court's ruling; conflict controls. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beattie v. CenturyTel, Inc., 511 F.3d 554 (6th Cir. 2007) (merits overlap with Rule 23 analysis permitted)
- Daffin v. Ford Motor Co., 458 F.3d 549 (6th Cir. 2006) (pre-certification merits scrutiny under Rule 23)
- Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156 (Supreme Court 1974) (merits need not be proven for certification; analysis may touch merits)
- Falcon v. IBM, 457 U.S. 167 (Supreme Court 1982) (class certification requires rigorous analysis; may overlap with merits)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (rigorous analysis may entail overlap with merits; certification proper when prerequisites satisfied)
- City of Los Angeles v. Santa Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882 (9th Cir. 2001) (recognizes authority to reconsider interlocutory orders under common law)
- Fayetteville Investors v. Commercial Builders, Inc., 936 F.2d 1462 (4th Cir. 1991) (Rule 54(b) support for reconsideration of interlocutory orders)
- Szabo v. Bridgeport Machines, Inc., 249 F.3d 672 (7th Cir. 2001) (permissible to consider merits to fulfill Rule 23 inquiries)
- Continental Ore Co. v. Union Carbide & Carbon Corp., 330 U.S. 610 (Supreme Court 1947) (rule that disaggregated view of conspiracy not controlling in all contexts)