14

- 294

- cv

Fra i ser v. Stanley Black & Decker

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

R ULINGS BY SUMMARY OR DER DO NOT HAVE PREC EDENTIAL EFFECT

. C ITATION TO A

SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER J ANUARY 1, 2007 IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY

F EDERAL R ULE OF A PPELLATE P ROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT ' S L OCAL R ULE 32.1.1.

W HEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COUR T

, A PARTY MUST

CITE EITHER THE F EDERAL A PPENDIX OR AN ELECTR O NIC DATABASE ( WITH THE NOT ATION

" SUMMARY ORDER "). A PARTY CITING A SUMMA RY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON

ANY PARTY NOT REPRES ENTED BY COUNSEL

.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second

Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in

the City of New York, on the 11th day of December , two thousand fourteen.

PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK

,

D ENNY CHIN

, SUSAN L. CARNEY

,

Circuit Judges

.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

TAWANNA FRA IS ER, on behalf of

herself and all others similarly

situated

, Plaintiff

- Appellant

,

v. 14

- 294

- cv

STANLEY BLACK & DECKER, INC.

, Defendant

- Appellee

.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x- 2

-

FOR PLAIN T I FF

- APPELL ANT : SANFORD P. DUMAIN, Milberg LLP, New

York, New York, and David A. Slossberg,

Hurwitz, Sagarin, Slossberg & Kn uff, LLC,

Milford, Connecticut

.

FOR DEFENDANT

- APPELL EE : MARK MILLER, Barn e s & Thornburg LLP,

Chicago, Illinois, and Joseph Bree Burns, Rome

McGuiga n, P.C., Hartford, Connecticut

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Connecticut ( Young

, J. ). *

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,

ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is VACATED

and the case is REMANDED

.

Plaintiff

- appellant Tawanna Fra i s er (" Fraiser "), on behalf of herself and all

others similarly situated, appeals from the judgment of the district court entered

January 16, 2014, dismissing her claims against defendant

- appellee Stanley Black &

Decker , Inc. ("SBD"). On October 4, 2013, ruling from the bench, the district court

granted SBD's motion to strike the class action allegations and to dismiss the complaint.

On October 15, 2013, Fraiser moved for reconsideration, and the district court denied

the motion by a handwritten note on Novemb er 6, 2013.

* The Honorable William G. Young, of the United States District Court for

the District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation.- 3

- In dismissing Fraiser's class action complaint , the district court stated in

totality :

I am persuaded. The class action allegations are stricken. The

Court concludes, giving all intendments in favor of the plaintiff,

that under Rule 23 the need for class action treatment does not

outweigh the individual aspects of the case. So I strike the class

action allegations. I don't have subject matter jurisdiction. The case

is dismissed.

( A 479)

. T he district court dismissed the case wi thout sufficiently articulating its

rationale, giving only a wholly conclusory explanation. The district court did not

specifically address the issues presented by SBD's motion to strike or by Rule 23 itself

,

including important issues of Connecticut law. For example, the district court did not

discuss Fraiser's standing to serve as a class representative under the Connecticut

Unfair Trade Practices Act ("CUTPA") or the scope of a viable class under CUTPA

.

Additionally, t he court did not discuss Fraiser's argu ment that, assuming she was

barr ed by CUTPA from representing a class of Connecticut residents, CUTPA's

standing provision was unenforceable by virtue of Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs., P.A.

v. Allstate Ins. Co. , 559 U.S. 393 (2010). The court also did not discuss whether the

complaint adequately plead ed claims under the Magnuson

- Moss Warranty Act, or

whe ther Fraiser's breach of warranty claims under Connecticut common law could

proceed on a class basis with or without the CUTPA claims.- 4

- Under the c ircumstances, we are unsure of the district court's reasoning,

and we are therefore unable to properly review its decision. Accordingly, we remand

the case to the district court for clarification and for a proper explanation. See Martens v.

Thomann , 273 F.3d 159, 173 (2d Cir. 2001) (remanding case for district court to explain its

decision because "it is better to remand to seek clarification from the district court"

rather than engage in "inappropriate speculation"); I n verness Corp. v. Whitehall La bs.

, 819

F.2d 48, 51 (2d Cir. 1987) (same)

.

* * *

Accordingly, we VACATE the district court's judgment and REMAND

the case for further proceedings.

FOR THE COURT:

Catherine O' Hagan Wolfe, Cler k