William Hayes v. WalMart Stores Inc
725 F.3d 349
| 3rd Cir. | 2013Background
- Sam's Club sells as-is items in a designated section with orange as-is stickers and price overrides at purchase.
- Price override data exists but lacks explicit reasons, though handwritten logs record the as-is designation and reason, not the sale.
- Sam's Club contracted with National Electronics Warranty Corporation to sell Service Plans; some as-is items are covered, others are not, depending on item type and manufacturer warranties.
- Hayes bought two as-is items with Service Plans; in one instance the store later refunded the plan for a television but Hayes declined, and in the power washer case coverage was disputed.
- Hayes filed a New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment class action for purchases since January 11, 2004; the district court certified a Rule 23(b)(3) class with defined exclusions.
- The Third Circuit vacated the class certification order and remanded in light of Marcus v. BMW (ascertainability, numerosity, and predominance), noting need for a reliable, administratively feasible method to identify class members.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ascertainability feasibility | Hayes: class definable by objective criteria with feasible identification. | Wal-Mart: records insufficient to ascertain who fits class. | Remand required; ascertainability not shown with Marcus guidance. |
| Numerosity | 3,500 price-override transactions suggest many members if a subset eligible. | No evidence of how many fit the class; speculation improper. | Remand; insufficient evidence to prove numerosity by preponderance. |
| Predominance | Common proofs predominate on core contract/CFD claims if class defined. | Individual inquiries overwhelm common issues without ascertainability. | Remand; must reevaluate after ascertainability and with Marcus guidance. |
| Standing / class representative adequacy | Hayes as lead plaintiff fits class if injury aligned with definition. | Hayes may not fit class if he lacks injury or warranty status; standing questioned. | Remand; determine Hayes’s fit within the class and injury; potential dismissal if lacking. |
Key Cases Cited
- Marcus v. BMW of North America, LLC, 687 F.3d 583 (3d Cir. 2012) (ascertainability requires objective class definition and feasible member identification)
- In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig., 552 F.3d 305 (3d Cir. 2008) (class-wide determinations require preponderance of evidence; manageability of inquiries)
- Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (U.S. 2013) (challenge to class certification requires rigorous adherence to Rule 23)
- Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (standard for abuse of discretion in certification, emphasis on commonality and predominance)
- Rowe v. E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Co., 262 F.R.D. 451 (D.N.J. 2009) (ascertainability and class definition; use of objective criteria)