Timothy Cherry v. Dometic Corporation
986 F.3d 1296 (2021)
Rule of Law:
Proof of administrative feasibility to identify absent class members is not a prerequisite for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23; ascertainability only requires that the class be defined by objective criteria.
Facts:
- Dometic Corporation manufactures and sells gas-absorption refrigerators designed for use in recreational vehicles.
- The refrigerators utilize a chemical solution that can be dangerous and flammable if it leaks.
- Plaintiffs allege that models sold between 1997 and 2016 contain a design defect that causes corrosion in the boiler tubes.
- This defect allegedly results in chemical leaks and presents a significant fire hazard.
- While Dometic initiated limited recalls in 2006 and 2008, Plaintiffs claim the defect affects a much wider range of units than Dometic admitted.
- Plaintiffs allege that Dometic knew of the defect but concealed the facts from consumers.
- The defect reportedly causes the refrigerators to lose functionality over time and creates safety risks for owners.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against Dometic in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
- Plaintiffs moved for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3).
- The District Court denied the motion for class certification, ruling that the Plaintiffs failed to prove an administratively feasible method to identify class members.
- The District Court subsequently dismissed the entire action without prejudice, reasoning that the denial of certification divested it of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act.
- Plaintiffs appealed the denial of certification and the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
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 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 require putative class representatives to prove an administratively feasible method for identifying absent class members as a precondition for class certification?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge William Pryor
No, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 does not require plaintiffs to prove that identifying class members will be convenient or administratively feasible to certify a class. The Court reasoned that the text of Rule 23(a) contains an implied requirement of 'ascertainability,' but strictly interpreted this to mean the class must be defined by objective criteria, not that the process of identification must be easy. The Court explained that adding an 'administrative feasibility' requirement would impose a burden not found in the text of the rule. While Rule 23(b)(3) requires a court to consider 'manageability,' this is a balancing test to be weighed against the benefits of the class action, not a standalone threshold bar. Furthermore, the Court held that the District Court erred in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction, as jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act survives the denial of class certification.
Analysis:
This decision represents a significant textualist approach to Rule 23, deepening a circuit split regarding the 'administrative feasibility' standard. By rejecting the heightened ascertainability requirement favored by the First, Third, and Fourth Circuits, the Eleventh Circuit aligns itself with the Second, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits. This ruling makes it easier for plaintiffs to certify consumer class actions involving low-cost goods where retaining purchase receipts is uncommon, as difficulty in identifying individual class members is no longer an automatic bar to certification. The decision emphasizes that manageability issues should be addressed through the balancing test of Rule 23(b)(3) rather than treated as a prerequisite.
