Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01255/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01255-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332oc Diversity-Other Contract

---

1 

16cv1255-GPC(AGS) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DINA ANDREN, SIDNEY BLUDMAN, 

VIRGINIA CIOFFI, BERNARD FALK, 

JEANETTE KERZNER-GREEN, 

CAROL MONTALBANO, and 

DONALD RIGOT, individually, and on 

behalf of other members of the general 

public similarly situated, , 

Plaintiff,

v. 

ALERE, INC., a Delaware corporation, 

ALERE HOME MONITORING, INC., a 

Delaware corportation, ALERE SAN 

DIEGO, INCA., a Delaware corporation,, 

Defendant.

 Case No.: 16cv1255-GPC(AGS) 

ORDER SETTING SUPPLEMENTAL 

BRIEFING SCHEDULE 

 On September 22, 2017, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for class 

certification. (Dkt. No. 122.) One key issue is the adequacy of Plaintiffs to represent the 

class based on their pursuit of economic damages and not personal injury damages. 

Defendant claims they are improperly claim-splitting while Plaintiffs disagree. If claims 

are split, there is a question as to the res judicata/collateral estoppel effect of a 

determination in this case on personal injury claims should a class member seek personal 

Case 3:16-cv-01255-GPC-AGS Document 125 Filed 09/28/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

16cv1255-GPC(AGS) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

injury damages in future litigation. The parties’ briefing does not adequately address the 

complexities and intricacies of this issue. At the hearing, the parties, without any legal 

support, offered their views on this question. Consequently, the Court finds that further 

briefing is required. 

 “Claim splitting is generally prohibited by the doctrine of res judicata . . . [and] 

class certification should be denied on the basis that class representatives are inadequate 

when they opt to pursue certain claims on a class-wide basis while jeopardizing the class 

members’ ability to subsequently pursue other claims.” In re Conseco Life Ins. Co. Life 

Trend Ins. Sales and Marketing Litig., 270 F.R.D. 521, 531 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (quoting In 

re Universal Serv. Fund Tel. Billing Prac. Litig., 219 F.R.D. 661, 668 (D. Kan. 2004) 

(“This is not a case where the class representatives are pursuing relatively insignificant 

claims while jeopardizing the ability of class members to pursue far more substantial, 

meaningful claims. Rather, here the named plaintiffs simply decided to pursue certain 

claims while abandoning a fraud claim that probably was not certifiable.”)): Kruger v. 

Wyeth, Inc., No. 03cv2496-JLS(AJB), 2008 WL 481956, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2008) 

(denying class certification based on adequacy for claims brought under California’s 

CLRA and UCL since class was open to those who suffered personal injuries but the 

plaintiff was not seeking to pursue personal injury damages”); Feinstein v. Firestone Tire 

& Rubber Co., 535 F. Supp. 595, 606-07 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) (denying class certification on, 

inter alia, adequacy grounds where named plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of an 

implied warranty of merchantability but did not seek damages for death, personal injury 

and accident–related property damages); but see Kennedy v. Jackson Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 

No. 07–0371 CW, 2010 WL 2524360, at *5 (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2010) (“Defendant 

cannot claim that Plaintiff is inadequate because she declines to assert a theory that could 

unravel the putative class.”). 

 The Ninth Circuit has not yet considered claim-splitting on a motion for class 

certification. In a recent case, the Fifth Circuit addressed claim splitting in a class action 

case and provided factors that this Court finds relevant. See Slade v. Progressive Sec. 

Case 3:16-cv-01255-GPC-AGS Document 125 Filed 09/28/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

16cv1255-GPC(AGS) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Ins. Co., 856 F.3d 408, 413 (5th Cir. 2017). “[D]eciding whether a class representative’s 

decision to forego certain claims defeats adequacy requires an inquiry into, at least: (1) 

the risk that unnamed class members will forfeit their right to pursue the waived claim in 

future litigation, (2) the value of the waived claim, and (3) the strategic value of the 

waiver, which can include the value of proceeding as a class (if the waiver is key to 

certification). Id. 

 The Court directs the parties to provide additional briefing on the issue of claimsplitting and to address the factors raised by the Fifth Circuit with legal authority and 

evidentiary support. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a 

supplemental brief, no longer than 10 pages, on or before October 13, 2017. Defendant 

shall file a supplemental responsive brief, no longer than 10 pages, on or before October 

20, 2017. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 28, 2017 

Case 3:16-cv-01255-GPC-AGS Document 125 Filed 09/28/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3