Marcus v. BMW of North America, LLC
2012 WL 3171560, 687 F.3d 583, 83 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 246 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To certify a class action under Rule 23, a plaintiff must prove numerosity with specific evidence pertinent to the defined class, not speculation, and must show that common questions predominate, a requirement that is not met if determining the cause of each member's injury requires individualized inquiries.
Facts:
- Jeffrey Marcus leased a 2007 BMW convertible equipped with Bridgestone run-flat tires (RFTs) from a dealership in New Jersey.
- During his three-year lease, Marcus experienced four separate flat tires.
- Each time a tire went flat, it functioned as designed, allowing him to drive to a BMW dealer for replacement.
- Marcus was billed between $350 to $390 for each replacement.
- The first tire was punctured by a nail and the second had a 'blown out bubble.'
- The third and fourth tires were destroyed after Marcus ran over large metal objects on the road.
- Experts for both parties agreed that any conventional tire would also have been destroyed by the impacts that damaged the third and fourth tires.
- Information about the potential downsides of RFTs, such as higher replacement costs and susceptibility to road hazards, was publicly available in company brochures and major publications like Consumer Reports and The New York Times.
Procedural Posture:
- Jeffrey Marcus filed a class action complaint against BMW of North America, LLC and Bridgestone in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
- Marcus moved to certify both a nationwide class and a New Jersey subclass of consumers.
- The District Court denied certification for the nationwide class but granted certification for the New Jersey subclass of owners and lessees whose Bridgestone RFTs had 'gone flat and been replaced.'
- BMW and Bridgestone, as appellants, petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for permission to appeal the class certification order.
- The Court of Appeals granted the petition for leave to appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the certification of a class of vehicle owners whose run-flat tires have 'gone flat and been replaced' satisfy the numerosity and predominance requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 when proof of class membership and the proximate cause of each tire failure requires individualized inquiries?
Opinions:
Majority - Ambro, Circuit Judge.
No. The class certification fails to satisfy the numerosity and predominance requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the New Jersey subclass was so numerous that joinder was impracticable, relying instead on speculation. Furthermore, individualized questions regarding the cause of each class member's tire failure predominate over common questions, making a class action inappropriate. The court reasoned that for numerosity, Marcus provided only nationwide data and complaints, failing to offer specific evidence about the number of qualifying BMW owners in New Jersey. Relying on 'common sense' to meet the numerosity threshold was deemed insufficient. On predominance, the court found that determining why each class member's tire went flat would require an individual mini-trial, as tires can fail for countless reasons unrelated to a potential defect. Similarly, for the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (NJCFA) claim, individual inquiries into what each class member knew about RFTs from publicly available information would be necessary to establish a causal link between the defendants' alleged omissions and any loss, defeating predominance.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the 'rigorous analysis' standard for class certification, particularly for state-specific subclasses. It establishes that plaintiffs cannot rely on nationwide data or 'common sense' inferences to satisfy the numerosity requirement for a geographically limited class; specific, localized evidence is required. The decision also highlights how causation issues in product defect cases can defeat predominance, as the need to individually investigate why each product failed creates mini-trials that undermine the efficiency of a class action. Finally, the court's analysis of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act limits the application of a 'presumption of causation' in cases where information about alleged defects is publicly available, requiring an inquiry into individual consumer knowledge and expectations.
Unlock the full brief for Marcus v. BMW of North America, LLC