Summary
The Supreme Court of Missouri reviewed a writ of prohibition challenging certification of a consumer class action against Coca-Cola. The court held that the proposed class was impermissibly overbroad because it included many uninjured consumers and could not be narrowed without becoming indefinite or requiring individualized determinations. The court therefore made the preliminary writ absolute and vacated the class certification.
Holdings
- When the court of appeals denies permission to appeal a class-certification order, the order does not become pending in the court of appeals, and the aggrieved party may directly petition the Supreme Court of Missouri for a writ of prohibition directed to the circuit court.
- A properly defined class is a prerequisite to class certification, even though the statutory and rule-based certification elements do not expressly state a separate class-definition requirement.
- A class definition encompassing more than a relatively small number of uninjured putative members is overly broad and improper.
- A class definition is impermissibly indefinite when class membership depends on individual merits determinations or subjective criteria such as each consumer's state of mind or personal preferences.
- The circuit court abused its discretion by certifying Pennington's proposed class because the class was impermissibly overbroad and could not be narrowed without becoming indefinite.
Questions Presented
- Whether the Supreme Court of Missouri could review the class-certification order by writ of prohibition after the court of appeals denied permission for an interlocutory appeal.
- Whether a class definition may be certified when it encompasses a very large number of uninjured persons.
- Whether a class definition is impermissibly indefinite when membership depends on individual merits determinations or subjective states of mind.
- Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by certifying Pennington's proposed class.
Disposition
writ_granted
Cases Cited (25)
- Riverside-Quindaro Bend Levee District v. Intercontinental Engineering Manufacturing, 121 S.W.3d 531, 532 (Mo. banc 2003)(followed)
- State ex rel. Union Planters Bank, N.A. v. Kendrick, 142 S.W.3d 729, 735 (Mo. banc 2004)(followed)
- State ex rel. Linthicum v. Calvin, 57 S.W.3d 855, 857 (Mo. banc 2001)(followed)
- State ex rel. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Clark, 106 S.W.3d 483, 486 (Mo. banc 2003)(followed)
- State ex rel. Ford Motor Co. v. Manners, 239 S.W.3d 583, 586-87 (Mo. banc 2007)(followed)
- State ex rel. Ford Motor Co. v. Messina, 71 S.W.3d 602, 607 (Mo. banc 2002)(followed)
- United States Parole Commission v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 402-03 (1980)(followed)
- Oshana v. The Coca-Cola Co., 225 F.R.D. 575, 578, 580-81 (N.D. Ill. 2005), aff'd, 472 F.3d 506 (7th Cir. 2006)(followed)
- Dale v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 204 S.W.3d 151, 177-78 (Mo. App. 2006)(followed)
- Ad Hoc Committee to Save Homer G. Phillips Hospital v. City of St. Louis, 143 F.R.D. 216, 219 (E.D. Mo. 1992)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 25.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…