[PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 2- 10 17 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :0 9- cv -0 18 27 -VEH
MELISSA K. LITTLE, et al., Pl ai nt iff s, JAC QUELINE ROBINSON, SEARCY CRAWFORD, Pl ai nt iff s - Ap pe ll an ts , ver su s T-MOBI LE USA, INC., Defen da nt- App el le e.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ernDis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Au gu st22 , 20 12 ) Case: 12-10170 Date Filed: 08/22/2012 Page: 1 of 13Befo re TJ OFLAT, CARNES andJORDAN, Ci rcu itJu dg es .

CARNES, Ci rcu itJu dg e: Ja cque li ne Ro bi ns on an d S earc y Crawfo rd , who m

we wil l re fer t o a s the pl ai nt iff s, ap pe al th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er d eny in g c la ss cert ifi cat io n o f th ei r pr op os edcla ss act io n a ga in stT-Mo bi le USA, Inc . They co nt en d tha t the di st ric t
erre d i n c on cl ud in g t ha t T-M ob il e d idno t wai ve it s ri gh t t o a ss ertarb it rat io n a nd cl as s- act io n wai ve r de fen se s. Iro ni cal ly, itis th e p la in ti ffs ’ own waiv er o f anis su e th atco nt ro ls th e o ut co m e o f th is ap pe al
. I. The pl ai nt iff

s fi le d apro po se d c la ss act io n a ga in stT-Mo bi le ass ert in g s ta te la w cla im s o f co nv ers io n, tres pa ss to ch at te ls , andun jus t en ric hm en t. The y al le ge d t ha t: (1) th ey

ha d re po rte d t o T-M ob il e th atth ei r cel l p ho ne s h adbe enlo st
orst ol en ; (2 ) anun kn own pe rs onbro ug htth ei r lo stor s to le n p ho ne s t o T-M ob il e; an d (3 ) T-Mo bi le un la wfu ll y reac ti va te d t he ph on es witho utth e p la in ti ffs ’ pe rm is si on . The p la in ti ffs fil eda m ot io n fo r cl as s ce rti fic at io n o f th ei r co nv ers io n cl ai m , pro po si ng th e fo ll owi ng cla ss : All pe rs on s wi th in th e Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca wh o, wi th in th e la st si x years p rece di ng th e d at e o f fi li ng th e o rig in al co m pl ai ntinth is cas e, rep orte d aph on e lo stor s to le n t o T-M ob il e an d wh ere T-M ob il e la te r al lo wedth e u se of tha t l os t o r st ol enph on e b y an othe r pe rs on on T-Mo bi le ’s net work. 2 Case: 12-10170 Date Filed: 08/22/2012 Page: 2 of 13W e d et ou r fro m th e p ro cedur al hi st ory

he re t o s umm ari ze s om e o f th e la w go ve rn in g c la ss cert ifi cat io n, wh ic h wi ll pro vi de co nt ex t fo r ou r di sc us si on of t he di st ric t co urt’s ru li ng on th e certi fic at io n m ot io n. Be fo re a d is tri ctco urt m ay gra nt
a m ot io n fo r cl as s ce rti fic at io n, a p la in ti ff s eek in g t o re pr es en t a p ro po se d c la ss m us t es tabl is h t ha t the pro po se d c la ss is “ ad equa te ly defi ne d a ndcle arl y as cert ai nabl e.” DeBr em aeck er v . Sho rt, 4 33 F.2d73 3, 7 34 (5t h C ir. 1 97 0) ; cf
. 1 Jo hn v. Nat ’l Sec. Fi re & C as . Co., 5 01 F.3d44 3, 4 45 (5t h C ir. 2 00 7) (“ The
ex is te nc e o f anasc ert ai nabl e cl as s o f pe rs on s t o b e rep res en te d b y th e p ro po se d cl as s re pr es en ta ti ve is anim pl ie d p rere qu is it e o f Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 23 .”). If the pl ai nt iff’s pro po se d c la ss is ad equa te ly defi ne d a ndcle arl y as cert ai nabl e, th e p la in ti ff m us t the n e st ab li sh th e fo urrequi rem en ts li st edin Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 2 3( a). Tho se requi rem en ts are: (1 ) th e cl as s i s s o num ero us th atjoi nd er o f al l m em be rs is im pr act ic ab le ; (2 ) th ere a re que st io ns of l aw orfactco m m on to th e cl as s; (3 ) th e cl ai m s o r de fen se s o f th e rep res en ta ti ve pa rti es are ty pi cal of th e cl ai m s o r de fen se s o f th e cl as s; an d (4 ) th e rep res en ta ti ve pa rti es wil l fa irl y an d a de qu at el y

pro te ctth e in te res ts of t he cla ss .
In Bonne r v. City

of Prichar d, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc), w e 1 adopted a s binding pre cede nt all decisions of the for mer F ifth Circuit handed down prior to October 1, 1981. 3 Case: 12-10170 Date Filed: 08/22/2012 Page: 3 of 13Fed . R. Civ . P. 23 (a). Th os e fo urrequi rem en ts are co m m on ly referre d t o a s

“ nu m ero si ty, co m

m on al ity , ty

pi cal it y , andad equa cy

of r ep res en ta ti on .” See, e.g ., Vall ey Drug Co . v. Gen ev a Ph arm ., Inc ., 35 0 F .3d11 81 , 11 88 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). Inad di ti on to est ab li sh in g t he Ru le 23 (a) re qu ire m en ts , a pl ai nt iff m us t al so es tabl is h t ha t the pro po se d c la ss sat is fie s atlea ston e o f th e th ree r equi rem en ts li st edinRu le 23 (b ). Fed . R. Civ . P. 23 (b ); P ic ke ttv. Io wa Bee f Pro ces so rs , 20 9 F.3 d 1 27 6, 1 27 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0) . In thi s ca se , th e p la in ti ffs are p ur su in g cert ifi cat io n u nd er the th irdalt ern at iv e requi rem en t, Ru le 23 (b )(3 ). Ru le 23 (b )(3 ) pe rm it s cl as s ce rti fic at io n i f “ th e co urt fi nd s tha t the qu es ti on s o f la w or fa ct
co m m on to cla ss m em

be rs pre do m in at e o ve r an y qu es ti on s af

fect in g o nl y in di vi du al m em

be rs , andth ata cl as s ac ti on is supe rio r to othe r av ai labl e m etho ds fo r fai rly andeffi ci en tl y

ad jud ic at in g the co nt ro ve rs y .” Fed . R. Civ . P. 23 (b )(3 ) (em ph as is ad de d) ; s ee Fi tz pa tri ckv. Gen . Mil ls , Inc ., 63 5 F .3d12 79 , 12 82 (11 th Ci r. 20 11 ). W e n ow re tu rnto th e p ro cedur al hi st ory . The d is tri ctco urt d en ie d t he pl ai nt iff s’ m ot io n fo r cl as s ce rti fic at io n o n fi ve gro un ds . The fi rs t g ro un d was th at th e p la in ti ffs ha d n otsat is fie d t he ir p rel im in ary bu rd enof e st ab li sh in g t ha t the ir pr op os edcla ss was c le arl y asc ert ai nabl e. The c ou rt r eas on ed , inpa rt, t ha t the pl ai nt iff s h ad“ m ad e n o e ffo rt t o s ep arat e o utth os e p ut at iv e cl as s m em be rs who 4 Case: 12-10170 Date Filed: 08/22/2012 Page: 4 of 13m ay

ve ry well be ba rredfro m

pu rs ui ng cla ss cla im s due to th e ex is te nc e o f va li d arb it rat io n a gr eem en ts or c la ss act io n wai ve rs th atpo te nt ia ll y pro hi bi t s uc h li ti ga ti on .” The c ou rt r eject edth e p la in ti ffs ’ co nt en ti on th atby sub st an ti al ly pa rti ci pa ti ng inth e li ti ga ti on T-Mo bi le ha d wai ve d i ts rig htto ass ertarb it rat io n an d c la ss -act io n wai ve r de fen se s. The sec on d g ro un d o n wh ic h t he co urt d en ie d c la ss cert ifi cat io n was th atth e pl ai nt iff s h adno t s at is fie d t he Ru le 23 (a)( 1) nu m ero si ty requ ire m en t. The co urt
reas on edth atth e p la in ti ffs ha d o ffer edno ev id en ce s ho win g n um ero si ty, no r m ad e an y “ effo rt t o a cco un t fo r th os e p ut at iv e cl as s m em be rs who waiv edth ei r ri gh t t o pu rs ue rel ie f ag ai ns t T-M ob il e o n acla ss -wid e b as is or wh o a re b ou ndby the ir ag reem en t t o a rb it rat e d is pu te s wi th T-Mo bi le .” The th irdgro un d t he di st ric t co urt s ta te d fo r de nyin g c la ss cert ifi cat io n was th atth e p la in ti ffs ha d fa il edto sat is fy th e p red om in an ce re qu ire m en t i n R ul e 23 (b )(3 ) be cau se th ere wer e “ si gn ifi can t s ta te -wid e v ari at io ns inth e law” of
co nv ers io n a ndinth e la w reg ard in g o th er i ss ue s, s uc h a s the en fo rceabi li ty of cl as s- act io n wai ve rs . The fou rth gro un d t he co urt s ta te d fo r de nyin g c la ss cert ifi cat io n was th at

“ da m ag e-re la te d c on cern s ev id en ce a p red om in at io n o f in di vi du al iz edin qu iri es an d re nd er the pro po se d c la ss un fitfor cert ifi cat io n u nd er Ru le [23 ](b)(3 ).” The 5 Case: 12-10170 Date Filed: 08/22/2012 Page: 5 of 13co urt ex pl ai ne d wh atth os e d am ag e-re la te d c on cern s wer e:

Here, Pl ai nt iff

s co nt en d t ha t “ in th is era o f Ebay an d o th er p ub li c on li ne si te s s el li ng us edph on es by the m il li on s, d et erm in in g a pa rti cu la r m od el ph on e’s va lu e is a rel at iv el y si m pl e m at te r of

on li ne res earc h.” Howev er, the y cert ai nl y off er n o c on cret e p ro po sa l o r m etho do lo gy abo utho w to effe ct iv el y an d a ccu rat el y

m an ag e su ch on li ne res earc h o n ana ti on wid e b as is . For e xa m pl e, whe n c on du ct in g on li ne res earc h, wo ul d 2 01 1 b e th e y ear t o u se for est ab li sh in g t he va lu e fo r a u se d p ho ne of acert ai n m od el or wo ul d t he y ear i n wh ic h th e p ho ne was m is pl acedor s to le n b e th e m or e ap pr op ria te ti m e fram e? Pla in ti ffs als o i gn or e h ow i nd iv idua li zedis su es rel at in g t o t he ag e o f th e p ho ne , whatco nt en ts or app li cat io ns were p rev io us ly on th e p ho ne , andwhet he r th e o rig in al own er was a he av y or l ig htus er of th e p ho ne , m ig htaffe ctth e v al ue of t he us edph on e. Add it io na ll y , Pl ai nt iff s d o n otad dr es s wh ethe r lo ss of u se of t he ph on e sh ou ldbe co m pe ns ab le an d, i f so , su gg es t h ow i t m ig htbe reduc edto a fo rm ul a-ty pe cal cu la ti on . (Alt erat io n a ndcit at io n o m it te d.) Th e d is tri ctco urt’s d et erm in at io n t ha t the pl ai nt iff s h adno t es tabl is he d t he pre do m in an ce o f co m m on is su es un de r Ru le 23 (b )(3 ) be cau se of i nd iv idua l d am ag e-re la te d i ss ue s was analt ern at iv e, in de pe nd en t ru li ng . Thatde te rm in at io n p ro vi de d a n a dd it io na l re as on th atth e pl ai nt iff s h adno t es tabl is he d t he pre do m in an ce o f co m m on is su es . Clas s cert ifi cat io n wo ul d h av e b een de ni edforth atreas onreg ard le ss of t he va ria ti on s i n st at e la w rel at in g t o c on ve rs io n a ndreg ard le ss of t he en fo rceabi li ty of cl as s- act io n waiv ers . The fif th gro un d t he di st ric t co urt s ta te d fo r de nyin g c la ss cert ifi cat io n was

6 Case: 12-10170 Date Filed: 08/22/2012 Page: 6 of 13th atth e p la in ti ffs ha d fa il edto est ab li sh supe rio rit y un de r Ru le 23 (b )(3 ). The
co urt b as edth atde te rm in at io n, i n p art , onth e p la in ti ffs ’ fai lu re “ to su gg es t h ow t o m an ag e th e rathe r th orny iss ue of p ut at iv e cl as s m em be rs who se rig ht s t o l it ig at e th ei r co nv ers io n c la im s as pa rt o f a cl as s p ro ceed in g i n t hi s fo ru m m ay ha ve be en cu to ff b y eit he r a cl as s ac ti on waiv er p ro vi si on , an a gr eem en t t o a rb it rat e, or bo th .” II. W e rev ie w on ly for an ab us e o f di sc ret io n t he di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f cl as s cert ifi cat io n. Hi ne s v . W idna ll , 33 4 F .3d12 53 , 12 55 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). “ A di st ric t
co urt ab us es it s d is cret io n i f itap pl ie s an in co rrec t l eg al st an da rd , fol lo ws im pr op er p ro cedur es ” in rul in g o n c la ss cert ifi cat io n, m ak es cle arl y erro ne ou s fact fin di ng s, o r ap pl ie s t he law “ in anun reas on ab le or i nc orrectm an ne r.” Kla y v. Uni te d Hea lt hg ro up , Inc ., 37 6 F .3d10 92 , 10 96 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s om it te d)
. The pl ai nt iff

s co nt en d t ha t the di stric t erredinco nc lu di ng th atT-Mo bi le di d
no t wai ve it s ri gh t t o a ss ertarb it rat io n a ndcla ss -act io n wai ve r de fen se s an d, fo r th atreas on , th e co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n d en y in g c la ss cert ifi cat io n. W e n eed
no t d eci de if t he di stric t co urt s ho ul d h av e ru le d t ha t T-M ob il e wai ve d i ts rig htto
as se rt t ho se two de fen se s, h owe ve r, be cau se ev enif i t d idwaiv e th em th e 7 Case: 12-10170 Date Filed: 08/22/2012 Page: 7 of 13pl ai nt iff

s ca nn otsu ccee d i n t hi s ap pe al . The p la in ti ffs can no t s uc ceedinth is ap pe al be cau se th ey

fai le d t o c ha ll en ge inth ei r op en in g b rie f to th is Co urt the di st ric t co urt’s fo urthgro un d fo r de nyin g c la ss cert ifi cat io n: it s i nd ep en de nt , al te rn at iv e ru li ng th at“ da m ag e-re la te d c on cern s ev id en ce a p red om in at io n o f in di vi du al iz edin qu iri es an d re nd er the pro po se d c la ss un fitforcert ifi cat io n u nd er Ru le [23 ](b)(3 ).” The pl ai nt iff s’ op en in g b rie f no t o nl y

fai ls to arg ue th e pr ed om in an ce i ss ue in vo lv in g v ari at io n i n d am ag es , itdo es n’t ev enm en ti on th e wor d “ dam ag es ” ex cep t i n p as si ng to no te th atth e co m pl ai ntso ug htth em . App el la nt s B r. 11
. By fai li ng to ch al le ng e in th ei r op en in g b rie f th e d is tri ctco urt’s ru li ng th at th ey fai le d t o e st ab li sh th e p red om in an ce o f co m m on is su es be cau se of v ari at io ns in da m ag es , th e p la in ti ffs ha ve ab an do ne d any con te nt io n t ha t the co urt erredin de nyin g c la ss cert ifi cat io n o n t ha t g ro un d. Se e Ham il to n v . Sou th la ndCh ris ti an Sch ., Inc ., 68 0 F .3d13 16 , 13 18 (11 th Cir . 20 12 ) (h ol di ng th atth e d efen da nt waiv edanaffi rm at iv e d efen se by “by fail in g t o l is t o r ot he rwis e st at e itas a n i ss ue on ap pe al ”); Hol la ndv. Gee, 6 77 F.3d10 47 , 10 66 (11 th Cir . 20 12 ) (“ The law i s b y no w well set tl edinth is Cir cu itth ata le ga l cl ai m or arg um en t tha t h as no t b een br ie fedbe fo re the co urt i s d eem edab an do ne d a ndit s m eri ts wil l n otbe ad dr es se d.” (al te rat io n a ndqu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ); G.J . v. Mu sc og ee Cn ty. 8 Case: 12-10170 Date Filed: 08/22/2012 Page: 8 of 13Sch . Dis t., 6 68 F.3d12 58 , 12 63 n.2 (11 th Cir . 20 12 ) (“ The App el la nt s d o n ot

ap pe al th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is m is sa l o f th e n on -IDEA cla im s an d h av e th eref or e ab an do ne d a ny clai m

th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredindo in g s o.” ); M es a AirGrp., In c. v. Del taAir Li ne s, In c., 57 3 F .3d11 24 , 11 30 n.7 (11 thCir . 20 09 ) (h ol di ng th atanarg um en t n otm ad e in th e in it ia l b rie f is waiv ed ); S m it hKl in e Bee ch am Co rp . v. Ap ot ex Co rp ., 43 9 F .3d13 12 , 13 19 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (“ [A]rgum en ts no t rai se d i n t he op en in g b rie f are waiv ed .”); Uni te d S ta te s v . Jerni ga n, 3 41 F.3d 12 73 , 12 83 n.8 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (“ Und er o urcas el aw, a pa rty seek in g t o ra is e a cl ai m or i ss ue on ap pe al m

us t p la in ly andpro min en tl y so in di cat e. Oth erwi se , th e is su e—e ve n i f pr op erl y

pre se rv edat t ria l—wil l b e co ns id eredab an do ne d.” ); F ed
. Sav . & LoanIns . Cor

p. v . Haral so n, 8 13 F.2d37 0, 3 73 n.3 (11 th Cir . 19 87 ) (“ [I]ss ue s tha t cl earl y

are n otde si gn at edinth e ap pe ll an t’s b rie f no rm al ly are de em edab an do ne d.” ). As we h av e sa id , “ itis no t undul y ha rs h o r ov erl y bu rd en so m e to requi re p art ie s t o ra is e is su es inth ei r in it ia l b rie fs .” Uni te d S ta te s v. Sm it h, 4 16 F.3d13 50 , 13 54 –5 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . It is no t t oo m

uc h t o a sk
. The pl ai nt iff

s d idarg ue inth ei r op en in g b rie f th at“ [t]he di st ric t co urt’s
erro ne ou s h ol di ng th atT-Mo bi le di d n otwaiv e [i ts arb it rat io n a ndcla ss -act io n waiv er] defe ns es as t o t he cla ss in fect edit s en ti re Ru le 23 an al y si s.” Ap pe ll an ts 9 Case: 12-10170 Date Filed: 08/22/2012 Page: 9 of 13Br. 2 9. W e d o n otin te rp retth atst at em en t as rai si ng th e is su e o f whe th er the

di st ric t co urt erredinba si ng it s p red om in an ce ru li ng on va ria ti on inda m ag es . The qu ot edlan gu ag e is no t, as ou r de ci si on s re qu ire , a st at em en t tha t “pl ai nl y an d pr om in en tl y ” in di cat es anin te ntto rai se th e d am ag es an d p red om in an ce i ss ue , Je rn ig an , 34 1 F .3dat 1 28 3 n .8, o r th at“ cl earl y . . . de si gn at e[s ]” the is su e, Haral so n, 8 13 F.2dat 3 73 n.3
. The pl ai nt iff

s n oton ly fail edto rai se th is is su e in th ei r op en in g b rie f, th ey al so fai le d t o ra is e itinth ei r rep ly brie f aft er T-Mo bi le ha d a rg ue d i n i ts an swe r br ie f th aton e o f th e rea so ns we sh ou ldaffi rm th e d en ia l o f cl as s ce rti fic at io n was th atva ria ti on indam ag es de st ro y edth e p red om in an ce o f co m m on is su es , as t he di st ric t co urt h adrul ed . Evenif t he pl ai nt iff s h adad dr es se d t he is su e fo r th e fi rs t ti m e in th ei r rep ly brie f, itwou ldha ve be ento o l at e. Uni te d S ta te s v . Levy, 37 9 F.3 d 1 24 1, 1 24 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) (“ [Thi s C ou rt] rep eat ed ly has refu se d t o c on si de r is su es rai se d fo r th e fi rs t t im e inanap pe ll an t’s re pl y bri ef.”) ; Un it edSta te s v . Whi te se ll , 31 4 F .3d12 51 , 12 56 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ) (“ W e n eedno t ad dr es s thi s i ss ue be cau se Whi te se ll rai se s i t fo r th e fi rs t t im e in hi s re pl y bri ef.”) . Lett in g t he pl ai nt iff s p utforwardth ei r arg um en ts onth is is su e fo r th e fi rs t t im e in th e rep ly br ie f wou ldde pr iv e T-Mo bi le of t he “ op po rtu ni ty to re fle ctup onan d re sp on d i n writ in g t o [t he pl ai nt iff

s’] arg um en ts ” an d wo ul d d ep riv e th is Co urt o f “ th e b en efi t

10 Case: 12-10170 Date Filed: 08/22/2012 Page: 10 of 13of

writ te n arg um en ts .” Ham il to n, 6 80 F.3dat 1 31 9. Inan y ev en t, the pl ai nt iff

s di d n otm ak e th e arg um en t i n t he ir r ep ly brie f. Eve n i f we g en ero us ly int erp retth e st at em en t i n t he pl ai nt iff s’ op en in g br ie f, whi chwe ha ve alr eady qu ot ed , see supr a, as rai si ng anarg um en t tha t the di st ric t co urt erredinrul in g t ha t the pre do m in an ce re qu ire m en t was no t m et be cau se of v ari at io n i n d am ag es , we wou ldrejectth e arg um en t. Tha t l an gu ag e, at
m os t, ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredinit s ru li ng s ab ou t the waiv er o f th e arb it rat io n a ndcla ss -act io n wai ve r de fen se s, an d t ho se erro ne ou s ru li ng s t ai ntth e da m ag es /n on -p red om in an ce g ro un d o f it s d eci si on . Butth e p la in ti ffs ne ve r ad equa te ly exp la in ho w. The cl os es t the y co m e is when th ey

qu ot e (i n t he ir r ep ly br ie f) a m et ap ho r fro m

anop in io n i n a no th er ca se : “ Ju stas o ne ba d i ng red ie ntcan sp oi l a s te w, on e err orof l aw can sp oi l an ord er.” Gray v. Bo st ic , 62 5 F .3d69 2, 69 7 (1 1th C ir. 2 01 0) (Carne s, J ., join edby Black , J., co nc urrin g i n t he de ni al of reh eari ng enbanc ); s ee Re pl y Br. 1 0. In th e Gray cas e, ho wev er, the re was no reas onforth e d is tri ctco urt’s d eci si on th atwas u nt ai nt edby the erro r of law. Th e di st ric t co urt i n t ha t ca se di d n otst at e in de pe nd en tl y ad equa te alt ern at iv e g ro un ds fo r it s ru li ng ; i t b le nd eda nu m be r of fact or s i nt o i ts de ci si on ; the erro r in vo lv eda fact or th atwas a n i ne xt ric ab le pa rt o f th e d eci si on . See Gray ex rel . Alex an de r v. Bo st ic , 61 3 F .3d10 35 , 10 41 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). Thatwas wh y th e err orsp oi le d t he 11 Case: 12-10170 Date Filed: 08/22/2012 Page: 11 of 13st ew inGray . Here, th e d is tri ctco urt’s d eci si onwas n otco nt ai ne d i n asi ng le po t

with b le nd edin gr ed ie nt s b utin st eadwas c on ta in edina nu m be r of po ts co nt ai ni ng di ffer en t i ng red ie nt s. If aba d i ng red ie ntwentin to so m e o f th e p ot s, tha t wo ul d
no t s po il whatwas d is he d o utof apo t tha t was free of t he in gr ed ie nt . The d is tri ct
co urt’s ru li ng th at“ da m ag e-re la te d c on cern s . . . ren de r[ed ] th e p ro po se d c la ss un fitfor cert ifi cat io n” was n otba se d, i n a ny way , onit s co nc lu si on th atT-Mo bi le di d n otwaiv e th e ri gh t t o a ss ertarb it rat io n a ndcla ss -act io n wai ve r de fen se s. Ev en as su m in g t ho se rul in gs ab ou t the no n- waiv er o f de fen se s wer e err or , th ey di d n ot affe ctth e ru li ng th atin di vi du al da m ag e-re la te d i ss ue s p red om in at edov er co m m on is su es , ren de rin g the cla ss un su it ab le forcert ifi cat io n u nd er Ru le 23 (b )(3 ). Insu m m ary, we m ay

ass um e th atth e d is tri ctco urt was wron g abo utTMo bi le no t wai vi ng it s arbi tra ti on an d c la ss -act io n wai ve r de fen se s, an d wro ng ab ou t wh ethe r th e cl as s was asc ert ai nabl e an d n um ero us , andwron g abo utth e no n- un ifo rm it y

of c on ve rs io n l aw in th e fi fty sta te s, an d wro ng ab ou t a c la ss act io n n otbe in g t he supe rio r m etho d fo r ad jud ic at in g t he cas e. Evenwith a ll of th os e as su m

pt io ns , th e d en ia l o f cl as s ce rti fic at io n wo ul d s ti ll no t b e anab us e o f di sc ret io n u nl es s t he di st ric t co urt was als o wro ng ab ou t the va ria ti on inin di vi du al da m ag es ren de rin g t he cla ss un su it ab le forcert ifi cat io n o n p red om in an ce g ro un ds
un de r Ru le 23 (b )(3 ). To the ex te ntth atth e p la in ti ffs have att ack edth atrul in g a t 12 Case: 12-10170 Date Filed: 08/22/2012 Page: 12 of 13al l, the y

ha ve no t p utforth a pe rs ua si ve reas on forov erturni ng it . For tha t re as on , th e d is tri ctco urt’s jud gm en t s tand s. AFFIRMED. 2

This appea l was orig inally schedule d for or al argument but was re moved from the or al 2 argument docket unde r 11th Circuit Rule 34-3(f)
. 13 Case: 12-10170 Date Filed: 08/22/2012 Page: 13 of 13