# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 2- 12 16

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Mat t Lu ik en ; J on San dq ui st , on be ha lf o f th em se lv es , all ot he rs si m il arl y si tu at ed

, an d t he Pro po se d M in ne so ta Ru le 23 Cla ss

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll ees

v.

Dom in o's Piz za, LLC

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - Mi nn eap ol is

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Octo be r 16 , 20 12 Fil ed : Fe br ua ry

4, 2 01 3

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re LOKEN, SMITH, and BENTON, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

The di s t r i c t c o u rt cert ifi ed a Ru le 23 (b )(3 ) cl as s of ab ou t 1,6 00 Mi nn es ot a de li ve ry dr iv ers em

pl oyed by Dom in o’ s Pi zza LLC be twee n Mar ch 6, 20 06
, an d
Feb ru ary 28
, 20 10

. The dr iv ers al le ge th at , un de r Mi nn es ot a la w, a fix ed de li ve rych arg e th at cu st om ers pa id Dom in o’s was a gr at ui ty wro ng fu ll y wit hh el d fro m th em

.

Thi s co ur t gr an te d an in te rlo cu to ry ap pe al an d no w re v ers es th e cl as s cert ifi cat io n.

I.

In 20 05
, Dom in o’s im

pl em en te d a fla t $1 pe r-d el iv ery ch arg e (rai se d to $1 .50
in 20 08 ) in M i n n e s o t a

. The dr iv ers rece iv ed no po rti on of it

. So m e ex pl ai ne d th is

to cu st om ers , ot he rs di d no t. Dis cl os ur e va rie d by m et ho d of or de r; on li ne pu rch as ers

were al ert ed th at “ Deli ve ry ch arg e wil l a p p l y,” an d em pl oyees ta ki ng or de rs were

su pp os ed to sa y th e sa m e. Deli ve red bo xe s in cl ud ed a st at em e nt of ch arg es li st in g th e de li ve ry ch arg e as “ Del Ch arg e.” Cred it card rece ip ts req ui rin g si gn at ur es in cl ud ed a bl an k li ne fo r ti ps ; t h e d el iv ery ch arg e was in cl ud ed in th e pr e-t ip

“ Am ou nt ” li ne

. The de li ve ry ch arg e was so m et im es di sp ro po rti on at e fo r a ti p (as it

was no t a pe rcen ta ge -b as ed gr at ui ty). At th e en d of 20 09
, Dom in o’s be ga n pr in ti ng

on so m e bo xe s, “ Any Deli ve ry Ch arg e is no t a ti p pa id to y ou r dr iv er. Pl eas e rewar d

y ou r dr iv er fo r awes om en es s.”

II.

Ru le 23 au th or ize s cl as se s tha t m eet req ui rem en ts of nu m ero si ty, co m m on al it y , typic al it y , an d fai r an d ad eq ua te rep res en ta ti on

. Fed. R. C i v . P. 23

. “ The di st ric t

co ur t is acco rd ed br oa d di sc ret io n to de ci de whe th er cert ifi cat io n is ap pr op ria te , an d

we wil l rev ers e on ly fo r ab us e of th at di sc ret io n.” Pr o f ’ l F i re fig ht er s As s’ n of
Om ah a, Loc al 38 5 v. Zal ews ki
, 67 8 F

. 3 d 6 4 0
, 64 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ). “ The di st ric t

co ur t’s ru li ng s on is su es of la w are rev ie wed de n o v o , a n d th e co ur t ab us es it s di sc ret io n if it co m

m it s an erro r of la w.” Bl

ad es v. Mo ns an to Co

. , 40 0 F.3 d 56 2, 56 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). “ The pr el im in ary in qu iry of th e cl as s cert ifi cat io n st ag e m ay req ui re th e co ur t to res ol ve di sp ut es go in g to th e fact ua l se tt in g of th e cas e, an d su ch di sp ut es

m ay ov erl ap th e m eri ts of th e cas e.” Id

. at 56 7. “ In or de r to ob ta in cl as s cert ifi cat io n,

-2

-a pl ai nt iff ha s th e bu rd en of sh owi n g th at th e cl as s sh ou ld be cert ifi ed an d th at th e

r e q u i rem en ts of Ru le 23 are m et .” Co le m an v. Wa tt , 40 F.3 d 25 5, 25 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 94 ).

A.

Und er Min ne so ta la w, “ an y gra tu it y rece iv ed by an em pl oyee or de po si te d in

or ab ou t a pl ace of bu si ne ss fo r pe rs on al se rv ic es ren de red by an em pl oyee is th e so le

pr op ert y of t he em

pl oyee.” Min n. Sta t. § 1 77 .24 Subdi v. 3

.

“ Grat ui ti es ” m ean s m on et ary co nt rib ut io n s rece iv ed di rect ly or in di rect ly by an em

pl oyee fro m a gu es t, pa tro n, or cu st om er fo r se rv ic es

ren de red an d in cl ud es an ob li ga to ry ch arg e as se ss ed to cu st om ers , gu es ts or pa tro ns whi ch m ig ht reas on ab ly be co ns tru e d b y th e gu es t,

cu st om er, o r pa tro n as be in g a pa y m en t fo r pe rs on al se rv ic es ren de red by an em pl oyee an d fo r whi ch no cl ear an d co ns pi cu ou s no ti ce is gi ve n by th e em pl oyer to th e cu st om er, gue st , or pa tro n th at th e ch arg e is no t th e p ro pe rty of t he em

pl oyee.

Min n Sta t. § 1 77 .23 Subdi v. 9

.

[O]bli ga to ry ch arg es whi ch m ig ht reas on ab ly be co ns tru ed by th e gu es t,

cu st om er, or pa tro n as a su m to be gi ve n to an em pl oyee as pa y m en t fo r pe rs on al se rv ic es ren de red

, in cl ud e, bu t are n o t l im it ed to , se rv ic e ch arg es , ti ps , gr at ui ti es , an d / o r s u rch arg es whi ch are in cl ud ed in th e st at em en t o f ch arg es gi ve n t o t he cu st om er.

Min n. R. 52 00 .00 80 Subpa ra . 4a

.

Lui ke n, th e cl as s rep res en ta ti ve , arg ue s th at th e de li ve ry ch arg e is a gr a t ui ty

un de r M in ne so ta la w, an d th us hi s so le pr op ert y

. He be li ev es th at un de r Ru le
52 00 .00 80 , th e de li ve ry ch arg e is a “ se rv ic e ch arg e” o r “ su rch arg e” i nc lu de d i n t he

-3

-st at em en t of ch arg es , an d th us by de fin it io n an ob li ga to ry ch arg e “ whi ch m ig ht

reas on ab ly be co ns tru ed

. . . as pa y m en t fo r pe rs on al se rv ic es .” Lui ke n al te rn at iv el y

a s s e r ts th at th e na tu re of th e ch arg e it se lf sh ows th at it “ m ig ht reas on a b l y b e

co ns tru ed ” as su ch a pa y m en t. He reas on s th at it is th eref or e a gr at ui ty un de r Sect io n 17 7.2 3 u nl es s Do m in o’s p ro vi de s “ cl ear and co ns pi cu ou s no ti ce .

. . th at th e ch arg e is no t th e pr op ert y of th e em pl oyee.” Bec au se Dom in o’s di d no t pr ov id e th e
st at ut or il y

- d e f

i n e d no ti ce, Lui ke n co nc lu de s it m us t pa y th e de li ve ry ch arg e to th e dr iv ers un de r Sec ti on 17 7.2 4.

Und er Lui ke n’s in te rp ret at io n, co nt ex t of sp eci fic tra ns act ions is ir relev an t; th e ke y is on ly whe th er no t i c e w a s g i ve n. To th e co nt rary, th e pl ai n la ng ua ge of th e
st at ut e an d ru le in di cat e th at co nt ex t m at te rs

. Ru le 52 00 .00 80 li st s se rv ic e ch arg es

an d su rch arg es as ex am pl es of “ ob li ga to ry ch arg es whi ch m ig ht r e a s o n a bl y be

co ns t r u ed by th e gu es t, cu st om er, or pa tro n

. . . as pa y m en t fo r pe rs on al se rv ic es .”
Thi s do es no t m ean th at th ey m us t be so co ns tru ed

. The st a t u t e an d ru le ’s us e of

“ th e” – “ whi ch m ig ht reas on ab ly be co ns tru ed by th e gu es t, cu st om er, or pa tro n

. . .”
– i nd ic at es th at th ey refe r to so m eo ne sp eci fic

. Se e Fl an dr ea u Sa nt

ee Si ou x Tr ib e

v. Unit ed St at es , 19 7 F.3 d 94 9, 95 2 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ) (th e “ us e of ‘the pe rs on ’ refe rs to

so m eo ne sp eci fic ”); St

at e v. Ho henw al

d
, 81 5 N.W .2d 82 3, 83 0 (Mi nn

. 20 12 ) (“ The
de fin it e art ic le ‘the ’ is a wor d of li mita ti on th at in di cat es a refe ren ce to a sp eci fic
ob ject.” ). The cu st om er’s ci rc um sta nc es de te rm ine w he ther th e de li ve ry ch arg e m ig ht

reas on ab ly be co ns tru ed as a pa y m en t fo r pe rs on al se rv ic es

. If, fo r ex am pl e, Lui ke n

ex pl ai ne d to th e cu st om er th at th e de li ve ry ch arg e was no t a gr at ui ty (as he so m et im es di d)

, th at cu st om er co ul d no t reas on ab ly be li ev e ot he rwis e – an d no no ti ce wou ld be

req ui red

.

-4

-B.

The pa rti es ag ree th at l i a b i l i t y un de r th e st at ut e an d ru le is ba se d on an ob jecti ve , reas on ab le pe rs on st an da rd

. As th is co ur t ex pl ai ne d in Avri tt v. Reli as ta r Li fe In s. Co

. , 61 5 F.3 d 10 23 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ), co nt ex t can be cri ti cal in ap pl y in g su ch

a st an da rd

. The re, a co up le who bo ug ht ret ire m en t an nu it ie s so ug ht to br in g a cl as s
act io n ag ai ns t th e se ll er (No rth ern , la te r m erg ed wit h Rel ia st ar) fo r a m is le ad in g rat ese tt in g pra ct ic e. Thi s cou rt con cl ud ed th at ev id en ce co m m on to th e cl as s cou ld no t

es ta bl is h li ab il it y to th e cl as s be cau se “ Rel ia st ar wo u l d be en ti tl ed to in tro du ce

ev id en ce ab ou t ho w th e co nt ract was ex pl a i n e d in va rio us sa le s di sc us si on s an d
whe th er each pu rch as er’s un de rs ta nd in g of th e co ntr ac t w as co nsist en t wit h th e th eo ry th e Avr it ts no w ad va nc e.” Avr it t , 61 5 F.3 d at 10 30

. In res po ns e to th e Avr it ts ’ cl ai m th at Nor th ern br each ed th e im pl ie d co ve na nt of go od fai th an d fai r de al in g, th is co ur t

ex pl ai ne d, “ W he th er Nor th ern act ed in ba d fai th by em ph as iz in g it s no n- gu aran te ed
in te res t rat e fo r ne w de po si ts an d en co ur ag in g pu rch as ers to be li ev e th at th e in tro du ct or y rat e was i n d i c a t iv e of fu tu re rat es is a qu es ti on cl os el y ti ed to th e ci rcu m st an ces of e ach in di vi du al pl ai nt iff .” Id

. at 10 31

.

The Avr it ts ci te se v e r a l c a s es fo r th e pr op os it io n th at th e ex te nt of th e du ty of go od fai th an d fai r de al in g is de fin ed by ob jecti ve ly reas on ab le

c o nd uc t, bu t th ei r arg um en t m is se s th e po in t th at wh at is ob je ct iv e l y

re a s o n a bl e de

pe nd s on th e na tu re an d co nt ext of th e pa rt ie s’ ba rg ai n

. . . . The di st ric t cou rt pro pe rly co nc lu de d th at ev id en ce of the pa rti es ’ jus ti fie d ex pe ct at io ns wou ld be req ui red to es ta bl is h a br each of th e du ty of go od fai th an d fai r de al in g. And th os e ex pe ct at io ns are li ke ly to va ry

am on g m em

be rs of th e pu ta ti ve cl as s ba se d on , am on g ot he r th in gs , each
pu rch as er’s i nd iv id ua l i nt erac ti on wit h s al es ag en ts

.

Id

. at 10 32 (em

ph as is ad de d)

.

-5

-The Avri tt an al y si s ap pl ie s in th is cas e. So m e pi zza cu st om ers as ke d ab ou t th e

ch arg e an d so m e di d no t; so m e em pl oyees vo lu nt eere d th at it was no t a gr at ui ty an d

so m e di d no t. Tho se ci rcu m st an ces de te rm in e th e ob jecti v e r eas on ab le ne ss of

co ns tru in g th e ch arg e as a pa y m en t fo r pe rs on al se rv ic es

. Thi s co ur t ha s pr ev io us ly reject ed cert ifi cat io n of cl as se s whe re tri a l wou ld req ui re co ns id eri ng va rie d
ci rcu m st an ces

. Se e In re St

. Ju de Med

., In c. , 52 2 F.3 d 83 6, 83 8- 42 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (rev ers in g gr an t of cert ifi cat io n whe re cl as s in cl ud ed pa ti en ts to wh o m d i f f eren t

rep res en ta ti on s ab ou t pr os th et ic he art va lv e ha d be en m ad e an d where res ol ut io n of
de fen da nt ’s li ab il it y was do m in at ed by in di vi du al is su es req ui rin g “ pl ai nt iff -b y

pl ai nt iff de te rm in at io ns ”); Dar m s v. McC ul lo ch Oil C

o r p . , 7 20 F.2 d 49 0, 49 3 (8 th
Ci r. 19 83 ) (aff

irming d e n i al of cl as s cert ifi cat io n whe re tra ns act io ns in vo lv ed
di ffer en t rep res en ta ti on s an d de gr ees of rel ia nc e “ an d th e de fen se s rai se d in th e cas e

wou ld ne ces sa ril y

va ry ba se d o n t he cir cu m st an ces of e ach pu rch as e”).

Lui ke n fai ls to di st in gu is h Avri tt

. He cl ai m s th at th is co ur t effe ct iv el y ap pl ie d

a su bjec ti ve st an da rd th ere, ho ld in g th at th e pa rti es ’ ac tu al ex pe ct at io ns “ are es se nt ia l

to a de te rm in at io n of whe th er a de fen da nt ’s co nd uc t is ob jecti ve ly reas on ab le un de r W as hi ng to n co m

m on la w.” The “

jus ti fie d ex pe c t a t io ns ” in Avri tt were th e

ex pe ct at io ns jus ti fie d b y

th e co nt ract ’s ter m s an d t he sa le sp ers on ’s rep res en ta ti on s. Dete rm in in g wha t ex pe ct at ion s w er e j ust if ie d re qu ire d ap pl y in g an ob jecti ve st an da rd

to th e co nt ex t of th e tra ns act io n. Se e Avr it t , 61 5 F.3 d at 10 32 (“ [W] ha t is ob jecti ve ly

reas on ab le de pe nd s on th e na tu re an d co nt ex t of th e pa rti es ’ ba rg ai n.” ). In Avri tt
, th e

co m m on qu es ti on was “ a qu es ti on cl os el y ti ed to th e ci rcu m st an ces of each in di vi du al pl ai nt iff .” Id

. at 10 31

. The sa m e is t r u e h e r e

. Lui ke n erro ne ou sl y co nc lu de s th at
b e c a us e Dom in o’s “ ad m it s th at Mi nn

. St at

. § 17 7.2 3 do es no t req ui re Pl ai nt i f f s t o sh ow ev id en ce of cu st om ers ’ act ua l, su bjec ti ve be li efs

, Avri tt is in ap po si te .” It is tru e th at , as th e di st ric t co ur t no te d, it is no t ta sk e d w it h de ci di ng “ whe th er th e fact

sp eci fic ci rcu m st an ces art ic ul at ed by Dom in o’s res ul te d in a cu st om er’s ac tu al be li ef

-6

-th at th e de li ve ry ch arg e was no t a ti p fo r th e de li ve ry dr iv er,” bu t th e co ur t is ta sk ed

wit h a pp lying th e rea so na bl e cu st om er s ta nd ard in co nt ex t.

C.

Mi nn es ot a de ci si on s co nf irm th at un de r th e st at ut e an d ru le

, co nt ex t m at te rs in
de te rm in in g whe th er cu st om ers m ig ht reas on ab ly co ns tru e an ob li ga to ry ch arg e as a
pa y m en t to em

pl oyees fo r pe rs on al se rv ic es ren de red

. Se e In re Al le ge d Lab or Law
V io la ti on of Cha

fo ul ia s Mg m t. Co

. , 57 2 N.W .2d 32 6 (Mi n n

. Ct

. App

. 19 97 ) [h erei na f t e r Ch af ou li as ]; In re Al

le ge d Lab or Law V

io la ti on of Gan ge lh of

f In v., In c. , Mi nn

. OAH Doc ke t No. 5- 19 00 -7 25 2- 2 (Ap r. 28
, 19 93 ) [ h e rei na fte r Gan ge lh of

f ] (u np ub li sh ed ).

In Gan ge lh of

f

, a ho te l bi ll ed an ob l i g a t o ry 33 % “ ba nq ue t se rv ic e ch arg e,” gi vi ng 60 % to se rv ers an d 40 % to ot he r em pl oyees. Gan ge lh of

f at 1, 3. The se rv ers cl ai m ed th at th e en ti re am ou nt was a gr at ui ty rig ht fu ll y th ei rs

. Id

. at 3- 4. Bas ed on th e co nt ex t, th e ALJ he ld th at it was no t a gr at ui ty ow e d so le ly to th e se rv ers ,

ex pl ai ni ng th at it m ig ht be “ in th e m or e co m m on cas e whe re o th er h ot el su rch arg es

are o n t he ord er o f 15 %, bu t i t s tra in s cr ed ul it y to ass ert th at cu st om ers in th is rur al

area th ou gh t th e 33 % fee was a m an da to ry un sh ared ti p fo r a few di rect se rv ers .” Id

. at 6. The ALJ ad de d th at be cau se th e se rv ers ha d no t “ pr ov en by a pr ep on de ran ce of
th e ev id en ce th at th e Res po nd en t’s p a t r o n s misu nd ers to od th e pu rp os e of th e

su rch arg e or th at th ey reas on ab ly co ul d ha ve do ne so , no no ti ce was ne ed ed .” Id

. at
6.

In Ch af

ou li as , a ho te l ap pe al ed fro m an ad m in is tra ti ve de ci s i o n th at it

wro ng fu ll y wit hh el d gr at ui ti es fro m em pl oyees. Cha

fo ul ia s , 57 2 N.W .2d 32 6. The
ho te l i m po se d a 16 % ser vi ce ch arg e o n b an qu et cu st om ers , bro ke n d own in th e b il l
in to a 12 % “ ba nq ue t se rv ic e fee” an d a 4% “ se rv ic e ch arg e.” Id

. a t 32 8. It di d no t

-7

-te ll cu st om ers th at on ly 9.6 % wen t to em pl oyees. Id

. The co ur t fo un d th at th e 12 %
fee was a gr at ui ty owe d th e em pl oyees, di s t i n g u is hi ng Gan ge lh of f by it s co nt ex t:

“ Here, th e am ou nt in qu es ti on is 12 %, well wit hi n th e no rm al ran ge fo r a ti p.” Id

. at
33 0. Tho ug h ne it he r Gan ge lh of f no r Ch af

ou li as rel y on em

pl oyee in te ract io ns wit h

cu st om ers , th e po in t is th at ci rcu m st an ces m at te r. Fu rth er, th e ke y ci rcu m st an ces in
bo th th os e cas es are als o pre se nt he re: Dom in o’s del iv ered to di ve rs e area s and th e de li ve ry ch arg e was so m et im es wit hi n th e no rm al ran ge fo r a ti p, bu t so m et im es well

ou ts id e it

.

D.

Bec au se Lui ke n errs in co nc lu di ng th at co nt ex t is irr el ev an t to th e st at ut e an d

ru le

, th e res t of hi s arg um en ts fai l. He arg ue s th at v e r ba l co m m un ic at io n by
Dom in o’s em

pl oyees wou ld no t sa ti sf y th e reg ul at or y de fin it io n of “ cl ear an d

co ns pi cu ou s no ti ce.” Se e Min n. R. 52 00 .00 80 , Subp ar a. 4b (impos in g req ui rem en ts
fo r “ cl ear an d co ns pi cu ou s” no ti ce th at th e ob li ga to ry ch arg e is no t a gr at ui ty). Tha t is tru e, bu t no ti ce is rel ev an t on ly i f th e ch arg e i s th e type th at m ig ht reas on ab ly b e

co ns tru ed as a pa y m en t fo r pe rs on al ser vi ces in th e tr an sa ct io n’s ci rcu m st an ces

.

Lui ke n co nt es ts th e wor ka bi li ty of a co nt ex t-b as ed in te rp ret at io n of th e st at ut e,
arg ui ng , “ If a de te rm in at io n of ho w a cu st om er ‘ m ig ht reas on ab ly co ns tru e’ a gi ve n ch arg e can n o t b e m ad e un ti l aft er each an d ev ery tra ns act io n is co m pl et e, th e cl ear

an d co ns pi cu ou s no ti ce pr ov is io n of th e st at ut e co ul d ne ve r be ut il iz ed .” The

pr ov is io n is in fact ut il iz ed

, as pa rt of wha t Lui ke n la be ls a “ two -s te p an al y si s” : fir st ,

a co ur t de te rm in es whe th er th e ch arg e m ig ht reas on ab ly be co ns tru ed as a pa y m en t
fo r pe rs on al ser vi ces . If so , th e co ur t t he n a na lyzes an y no ti ce.

Lui ke n arg ue s t h a t a co nt ex t-b as ed ap pl ic at io n ov erl y em ph as iz es ti ps

. He

co nt en ds th at th e qu es ti on is no t whe th er th e cu st om ers m ig ht reas on ab ly be li ev e th e

-8

-de li ve ry ch arg e is a ti p, bu t whe th er th ey m ig ht reas on ab ly be li e v e i t i s a no n- ti p

gr at ui ty fo r “ pe rs on al se rv ic es ren de red ,” su ch as co m pe ns at in g th e dr iv er fo r us in g

a pe rs on al car. True
, m or e th an ti ps are “ ob li ga to ry ch arg es ” un de r Sect io n 17 7.2 3.
Se e Min n. R. 52 00 .00 80 Subpa ra . 4a (“ ob li ga to ry ch arg es

. . . in cl ud e, bu t ar e n ot
li m it ed to , se rv ic e c h a r g e s , ti ps , gr at ui ti es , an d/ or su rch arg es ”). Howev er, ti ps are

ex pr es sl y m en ti on ed

, so co nt ex tu al fa c to rs st il l affe ct ho w cu st om ers co ns tru e th e ch arg e. Ch af

ou li as an d Gan ge lh of

f de al wit h c ha rg es la be le d “ se rv ic e ch arg e” an d

“ se rv ic e fee,” y et an al y ze th e ch arg es as ti ps

. Mo st pr ob le m at ic fo r Lui ke n is th at

ev en if hi s in te rp ret at io n were co rrec t, so m e dr iv ers ex pl ic it ly to ld cu st om ers th at th e ch arg e wen t to Dom in o’s or th at it was no t a gr at ui ty. Lu i k e n hi m se lf to ld so m e

cu st om ers , “ The re’s th is de li ve ry ch arg e, bu t it ’s no t – th at ’s no t act ua ll y a gr at ui ty.”
Tho se cu st om ers co ul d n ot th en reas on ab ly bel ie ve it was.

E.

Bec au se va ry in g ci rcu m st an ces gu id e th e st at ut or y st an da rd

, th e cert ifi ed cl as s do es no t m eet th e req ui rem en t of co m m on al it y

. “ Co m

m on al it y req ui res th e pl ai nt iff

to de m on st rat e th at th e cl as s m em be rs ‘hav e su ffer ed th e sa m e i n ju ry .’ ” Wa l-M

ar t
St or es , In c. v. Duk es , 13 1 S. Ct

. 25 41
, 25 51 (2 01 1)

, qu ot in g Gen. Tel. Co

. of Sw. v. Fa lc on , 45 7 U.S. 1 47 , 15 7 (1 98 2)

.

[The pl ai nt iff

s’] cl ai m s m

us t de pe nd up on a co m

m on co nt en ti on

. . . . Tha t co m m on co nt en ti on , m or eo ve r, m us t b e of su ch a na tu re th at it is
cap ab le of cl as swi de res ol ut io n – whi ch m ean s th at de te rm in at io n of it s tru th or fal si ty wil l res ol ve an is su e th at is cen tra l to th e va li di ty of each

on e o f th e cl ai m s i n o ne st ro ke

.

Duk es , 13 1 S . Ct. at 25 51

.

-9

-In Duk es , W al -Ma rt ap pe al ed th e c l a ss cert ifi cat io n of fem al e em pl oyees

se ek in g da m ag es fo r di sc riminat or y pr om ot io n pr act ic es

. Duk es , 13 1 S. Ct

. at 25 49

. Loc al m an ag ers ge ne ral ly ha d di sc ret io n t o m ak e p ay an d p ro m ot io n dec is io ns

. Id

. at 25 47

. The Co ur t co nc lu de d th at “ de m on st r a t i n g t he in va li di ty o f on e m an ag er’s

us e of di sc ret io n wil l do no th in g to de m on st rat e th e in va li di ty of an ot he r’s. A pa rty

se ek in g to cert ify a na ti on wid e cl as s wil l b e u na bl e to sh ow t ha t al l th e em pl oyees’
Ti tl e VII cl ai m s wil l in fact de pe nd on th e an swe rs to co m m on qu es ti on s. ” I

d

. a t
2 5 5 4

. Th e C ou rt ex pl ai ne d th at th e pl ai nt iff s di d no t id en ti fy “ a co m

m on m od e of

ex erci si ng di sc ret io n t ha t p erv ad es th e en ti re co m pa ny.” Id

. at 25 54 -5 5.

Si m il arl y , whe th er th is type of c h a rg e m ig ht reas on ab ly be co ns tru ed as a
pa y m en t fo r pe rs on al se rv ic es in on e tra ns act io n do es no t de te rm in e whe th er it m ig ht

reas on ab ly be co ns tru ed th at way in an ot he r tra ns act io n. N o de ci si ve co nt ex t

pe rv ad es Dom in o’s Mi nn es ot a de li ve rie s. In Duk es , th e Co ur t ap pr ov ed Ch ie f Ju dg e Koz in sk i’s su m

m ary of th e di ffer en ces am on g pr op os ed cl as s m em be rs ’
ci rcu m st an ces

. Id

. at 25 57
, qu ot in g Duk es v. Wa l-M ar t St or es , In c. , 60 3 F.3 d 57 1,
65 2 (9 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (Ko zi ns ki

, C.J
., di ss en ti ng ). Dom in o’s of fers a si m il ar su m

m ary of di ffer en ces in de li ve ry tra ns act io ns

. Tho se di ffer en ces affe ct th e rea so na bl en es s of co ns tru in g th e de li ve ry ch arg e as a gr at ui ty. Und er Duk es , th e di st ric t co ur t he re

erre d in fin di ng co m

m on al it y , be cau se th e va rie d ci rcu m st an ces of de li ve rie s pr ev en t

“ on e st ro ke ” d et erm in at io n.

The cas es Lui ke n ci te s in res po ns e to D uk es ar e ina ppl ic ab le or di st in gu is ha bl e. N o n e o f t he ir di ffer en ces fro m Duk es are an al og ou s he re. In Gra y v. Hea rs t
Co mmun ic at io ns , In c. , 4 4 4 F. App x. 69 8 (4 th Ci r. 20 11 ), pu rch as ers of ph on e di rect or y ad ve rti si ng sp ace al le ge d th at th e di rect or y m is rep res en te d th e ex te nt of it s di st rib ut io n. The co ur t f o u nd th at di ffer en ces in rep res en ta ti on s di d no t pr ev en t

co m m on al it y be cau se each co nt ract co nt ai ne d th e sa m e d is tri bu ti on ob li ga ti on

. Id

. at 70 1. Cert ifi cat io n w a s up he ld be cau se whe th er th e de fen da nt br each ed th at

-1 0-ob li ga ti on co ul d be res ol ve d in o n e s t r ok e. Id

. at 70 2. Lui ke n arg ue s th at th e si m il arl y de ci si ve qu es ti on he re is w he the r D om ino’s pr ov id ed th e st at ut or il y -d efi ne d

no ti ce. Tha t qu es ti on wou ld be di sp o s i t i v e on ly if th e de li ve ry ch arg e m ig ht

reas on ab ly be co ns tru ed as a pa y m en t fo r pe rs on al se rv ic es

. Gra y is in ap pl ic ab le
be cau se th e co nt ex t de te rm in es th e reas on ab le ne ss of co ns tru in g th e de li ve ry ch arg e

as a gr at ui ty.

Lui ke n ci te s Su ll iv an v. DB In ves tmen ts
, In c. , 66 7 F.3 d 27 3, 29 9- 30 0 (3 d Ci r. 20 11 ) (en ba nc ), cer t. d e n i e d 1 32 S. Ct

. 18 76 (2 01 2)

, fo r hi s pr op os it io n th at “ th e fo cu s at cert ifi cat io n sh ou ld be on th e de fen da nt ’s co nd uc t an d whe th er th at co nd uc t

was th e sa m e as to al l cl as s m em be rs .” He ag ai n ig no res th e st at ut e’s e mp h a s i s o n whe th er th e ch arg e m ig ht reas on ab ly be co ns tru ed as a pa y m en t fo r pe rs on al se rv ic es

a n d a s s e r ts th at Dom in o’s was ob li ga te d to pr ov id e th e st at ut or il y -d efi ne d no ti ce. Co nt rary to hi s as se rti on , Dom in o’s co nd uc t acro ss th e cl as s di ffer ed in cri ti cal way s (d ep en di ng on th e co nt ex t un de r Sect io n 17 7.2 4's ob jecti v e r e a so na bl e pe rs on
st an da rd ). So m e of Dom in o’s e m pl oyees to ld cu st om ers th e ch arg e was no t a
gr at ui ty, bu t so m e di d no t. Lui ke n al so as se rts th at “ Su ll iv an m erel y req ui res a cl as s
pr op on en t to sh ow th at sh e wil l m eet ‘certa in el em en ts ’ of he r cl ai m th ro ug h co m m on
pr oo f.” Se e id

. at 30 5. The co m

m on pr oo f Lui ke n of

fers is th e la ck of no ti ce, bu t th e is su e of no ti ce is pa rt of th e se co nd st ep in ap pl y in g th e st at ut e. It is no t an ab so lu te

req ui rem en t; fir st , th e ch arg e m us t be on e th at m ig ht reas o n a b l y b e c on st ru ed as a
pa y m en t fo r pe rs on al se rv ic es

. Bec au se th e la ck of no ti ce is no t di sp os it iv e, Su ll iv an do es no t ap pl y

.

Lui ke n al so m is a p p l i e s Ro ss v. RBS Ci ti ze ns , N.A.
, 66 7 F.3 d 90 0 (7 th Ci r. 20 12 ). The re, th e pl ai nt iff s al le ge d th at C h a rte r One en fo rced an un of fic ia l po li cy de nyin g ov ert im e pa y

. Ro ss , 66 7 F.3 d at 90 3. Tha t co m m on cl ai m is di ffer en t fro m Lui ke n’s. The co m

m on qu es ti on – whe th er th e de fen da nt ha d an un of fic ia l co m pa ny
po li cy fo rci ng pl ai nt iff

s to pe rfo rm du ti es fo r whi ch th ey were en ti tl ed to ov ert im e

–

-1 1-ha d a co m

m on an swe r cap ab le of res ol ut io n in on e st ro ke

. Tha t was tru e de sp it e th e

“ sl ig ht va ria ti on s” be twee n di ffer en t lo cat io ns

. Ro ss , 66 7 F.3 d at 90 9- 10

. Here, th ere is no qu es ti on res ol va bl e b y a si ng le de te rm in at io n.

Cert ifi cat io n of a Ru le 23 (b )(3 ) cl as s al so req ui res th at “ qu es ti on s of la w or fact

co m m on to cl as s m em

be rs pr ed om in at e ov er an y qu es ti on s affe ct in g on ly in di vi du al

m em be rs .” Fed. R. Ci v. P. 2 3( b)(3 )

. The ru l e “t es ts whe th er pr op os ed cl as se s are

su ffi ci en tl y co he si ve to warra nt ad jud ic at io n by rep res en ta ti on .” Am chem Pro du ct s, In c. v. Wi nd

so r , 52 1 U.S. 59 1, 62 3 (1 99 7)

. It is “ far m or e de m an di ng ” th an th e
req ui rem en t o f co m

m on al it y

. Id

. at 6 23 -2 4.

W he n de te rm in in g whe th er co m mo n q u es ti on s pr ed om in at e, a co ur t

m us t co nd uc t a li m it ed pr el im in ary in qu iry, lo ok in g be hi nd th e pl ead in gs , bu t th at in qu iry sh ou ld be li m it ed to de te rm in in g whe th er, if th e pl ai nt iff

s’ ge ne ral al le ga ti on s are tru e, co m m on ev id en ce co ul d

su f f i c e to m ak e ou t a pr im a faci e cas e fo r th e cl as s. W hi le li m it ed in

sc op e, th is an al y si s s ho ul d a ls o b e ri go ro us

.

In re Zurn Pex Plum bi ng Pro d. Lia b. Li t i g . , 64 4 F.3 d 60 4, 61 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (in te rn al ci ta ti on s an d qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. Co m m on ev id en ce can no t m ak e ou t

a p rima facie cas e fo r th is cla ss

.

III.

Dom in o’s arg ue s th at th e cert ifi ed cl as s v i o l a t e s Arti cl e III st an di ng
req ui rem en ts an d th e Ru le s Ena bl in g Act. Bec au se th e cl as s cert ifi cat io n is

un su st ai na bl e un de r Ru le 23
, th ere is no ne ed to co ns id er th os e arg um en ts

. Se e In re St . Jud e Me d. , 52 2 F .3d at 8 41

.

-1 2-IV.

The va rie d co nte xt of the tr an sa ct io ns m ad e it un reas on ab le fo r so m e cu st om ers
to co ns tru e th e de li ve ry ch arg e as a pa y m en t fo r pe rs on al se rv ic es , th ereb y pr ev en ti ng

o ne -s tro ke de te rm in at io n of a cl as swi de qu es ti on

. The di st ric t co ur t ab us e d i t s di sc ret io n b y

cert ifyin g t he cla ss

.

Thi s co ur t rev erses the cl as s cert ifi cat io n or de r of th e di st ric t co ur t an d rem an ds
fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs co ns is te nt wit h t hi s o pi ni on

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 3-