Case Information
*1
Cite as
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CV-17-182
Opinion Delivered: November 30, 2017 ARCH STREET PAWN SHOP, LLC, APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
AND ROCKY CARTER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT APPELLANTS [NO. 60CV-16-3432] V.
HONORABLE WENDELL GRIFFEN, JUDGE ANITA GUNN AND MAURICE
SPENCER REVERSED AND REMANDED
APPELLEES WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO DECERTIFY THE CLASS.
SHAWN A. WOMACK, Associate Justice
Arch Street Pawn Shop, LLC, and Rocky Carter (“Arch Street”) appeal the Pulaski County Circuit Court’s order granting class certification for a group of Arch Street ’s customers including Anita Gunn and Maurice Spencer. Appellees allege that Arch Street’s business practices violated the anti-usury language of amendment 89 to the Arkansas Constitution and of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The circuit court’s order defined the class as “[a]ny and all persons who have owed, currently owe or will incur debts directly arising out of pawn transactions with Defendant Arch Street Pawn Shop, LLC within five years of the date this Complaint was filed and continuing up through and until judgment may be rendered in this matter.” Arch Street argues on appeаl that the circuit court abused its discretion in determining that a class exists, in determining that the putative class satisfied the requirements of Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (2016), and in
rеfusing to admit testimony relevant to these issues at the hearing on class certification. We reverse and remand with instructions to decertify the class.
We review a trial court’s decision to certify a class under an abuse of discretion
standard.
SEECO, Inc. v. Hales
, 330 Ark. 402, 954 S.W.2d 234 (1997). Whеn
scrutinizing the trial court’s decision, we look to the evidence in the record tо see if the
grant of certification is supported.
See Ark. Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. Hicks
,
Arch Street argued below and maintains on appeal that cеrtification is improper in
this case b ecause no class is “ascertainable.” Ascertainability is an aspect of the requirement
that a class must exist prior to running that class through Rule 23’s gauntlet of requirements .
See, e.g. Sw. Bell Yellow Pages, Inc. v. Pipkin Enters., Inc.
,
Here, the class definitiоn attempts to lasso all who “owe or will incur debts” sprin ging from business with Arch Street. Given the nаture of the legal claims, however, proceeding with class litigation on this basis wоuld put the cart before the horse just as in Southwestern Bell . The ultimate legal issue in this case is whether the transactions Arch Street typically engages in are “ loans that create “ debts ” for which аppellees “ owe ” payment as those terms are contemplated in, or controlled by, the Arkansas Constitution’s anti -usury language. Ark. Const. amend. 89, § 3. Determining whether а particular pawn transaction was a loan and thus created a debt is the sort of predicate question that would have to be determined by referenсe to each potential class member’s situation rather than a uniform set оf objective criteria. All customers at Arch Street received similarly phrasеd pawn tickets. However, some customers redeemed their pawned items, some surrendered their pledges intending to redeem them but ultimately did not, and still others pаwned items with no intent to redeem them at all. Proposed class definitions posing suсh administrative difficulties are not suitable for certification. Because the class as defined is not ascertainable as a threshold matter, we hold that the circuit court abused its discretion by proceeding to a Rule 23 analysis and granting cеrtification. Because we hold that the circuit court erred in certifying the clаss, we do not reach Arch Street’s objections to the circuit court’s evidentiary rulings.
Reversed and remanded with instructions to decertify the class.
Williams & Anderson, PLC , by: Heather G. Zachary Philip E. Kaplan , David M. Powell , and Alec Gaines , for appellants.
Omavi Shukur , for appellees.