Ryan v. Patterson

Summary

The Alabama Supreme Court reviewed a challenge to the certification of a non-opt-out class under Rule 23(b)(2) in litigation concerning termite-treatment and inspection services. The court held that the settlement's individualized termite-damage claims, monetary relief, and related hearings were not appropriate for certification under Rule 23(b)(2). It reversed the certification order and remanded for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. The Patterson class could not be certified under Rule 23(b)(2) because the settlement's relief, considered as a whole, was predominantly monetary rather than class-wide injunctive or declaratory relief. The termite-repair plan required individualized damage calculations, individual claims, and additional hearings or appeals, making the relief inconsistent with the incidental monetary relief contemplated by Rule 23(b)(2).
2. The listed objectors were properly stricken as appellants because the settlement notice unequivocally required each objection to be made by the individual class member, Ryan was not authorized to represent them, and the circuit court did not deem their objections properly filed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the settlement class was properly certified under Rule 23(b)(2), Ala. R. Civ. P., when the settlement provided substantial monetary relief requiring individualized determinations of termite damage and claim amounts.
2. Whether approximately 500 individuals who were not properly represented in the objection process could remain as appellants when the settlement notice prohibited one class member from objecting on behalf of others and the circuit court did not recognize their objections as properly filed.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded