FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ANUARY 25, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 83 7

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 :1 0- cv -6 03 54 -UU COASTAL NEUROLOG Y, INC., in di vi du al ly andon be ha lf o f al l o th ers si m il arl y si tu at ed , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff - App el la nt , vers us STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll 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 forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J anua ry 25 , 20 12 ) Befo re CARNES a ndHULL, Cir cu itJu dg es , andROTHSTEIN, Dis tri ctJu dg e. * PER CURI AM: Co as ta l Neu ro lo gy, Inc., ap pe al s t he di st ric t co urt’s o rd er d en y in g i ts Honora ble B arba ra Jacobs Rothstein, United States District J udg e for the Western * District of Washington, sitting by designation.m ot io n fo r cl as s ce rti fic at io n. Th e d is tri ctco urt re as on edth atin di vi du al is su es of

factwou ldpre do m in at e o ve r th e g en eral is su es of l aw an d fa ctdu rin g t he ad jud ic at io n o f th is cas e, an d o n t ha t b as is de te rm in edth atCo as ta l fa il edto sat is fy th e p red om in an ce, s up eri or it y , andtypic al ity requi rem en ts of F ed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 2 3. Aft er ca refu ll y rev ie win g t he reco rd , read in g t he bri efs , andhe ari ng or al arg um en t fr om

Co as ta l an d d efen da ntSta te Farm Mu tu al Aut om ob il e In su ran ce Co m

pa ny, w e co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n in en te rin g t he Nov em

be r 30 , 20 10 ord er d en y in g c la ss cert ifi cat io n a ndth e res ul ti ng Decem

be r 12 , 20 10 ord er d is m is si ng Co as ta l’s co m pl ai ntforlac k o f subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on . The di stric t co urt ap pl ie d t he co rrec t l eg al st an dardfro m Ru le 23 . Coa st al co nt en ds th atth e co urt m is ap pl ie d Kl ay v. Hu m an a, In c., 38 2 F .3d12 41 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ), an d o urot he r cl as s ce rti fic at io n p rece de nt . W e d is ag ree, an d i n a ny even t,

“ as lo ng as t he di st ric t co urt’s re as on in g s ta y s wi th in th e p aram et ers of Rul e 2 3’s requi rem en ts . . ., th e d is tri ctco urt d eci si on wil l n otbe di sturbe d.” Bab in eauv. Fed . Exp res s C or

p., 5 76 F.3d11 83 , 11 89 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s om it te d) . It d id . Inpe rfo rm in g i ts Ru le 23 (b )(3 ) pr ed om in an ce an al y si s, the di st ric t co urt d id no t err in co ns id eri ng th e in di vi du al iz edde fen se s t ha t St at e Farm wou ldha ve to 2th e p ro po se d c la ss m em be rs ’ cl ai m s. As th is Co urt n ot edin th e Kla y de ci si on ,

“ [i]n d et erm in in g wh ethe r cl as s o r in di vi du al is su es pre do m in at e in a pu ta ti ve cl as s ac ti on su it , we m

us t t ak e in to acco un t t he cla im s, d efen se s, re le va ntfact s, an d app li cab le subs ta nt iv e la w . . . .” Klay, 38 2 F .3dat 1 25 4 (quo ta ti on m ark s om it te d) . Alth ou gh a di st ric t co urt m ay no t re so lv e th e m eri ts of acas e whe n ru li ng on a Ru le 23 m ot io n, s ee Heff ne r v. B lu e Cro ss an d B lu e Sh ie ldof Al a., In c., 44 3 F .3d13 30 , 13 37 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ), th e co urt m ay , andso m et im es m us t, in qu ire in to th e m eri ts in ord er t o d et erm in e whe th er the requi rem en ts of R ul e 2 3 ha ve be ensat is fie d, s ee Val le y Drug Co . v. Gen ev a Ph arm s., In c., 35 0 F .3d11 81 , 11 88 n.1 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) . Thatki ndof l im it edin qu iry is a ll th atth e d is tri ct co urt u nd ert oo k i n t hi s ca se . See al so W al m artSto res , Inc . v. Duke s, — U.S. —, 13 1 S .Ct. 2 54 1, 2 55 1– 52 (20 11 ) (“ [S]om et im es itm ay be ne ces sa ry

forth e co urt to pro be be hi ndth e p le ad in gs be fo re co m in g t o re ston th e certi fic at io n que st io n . . . [, whi ch ] ge ne ral ly inv ol ve s co ns id erat io ns th atare en m es he d i n t he factua l an d le ga l i ss ue s co m

pr is in g t he pl ai nt iff

’s cau se of a ct io n.” (qu ot at io n m ark s an d ci ta ti on s o m it te d) ); B ab in eau , 57 6 F .3dat 1 19 1 (“ The pre do m in an ce i nqui ry requi res anex am in at io n o f th e cl ai m s, d efen se s, re le va ntfact s, an d app li cab le subs ta nt iv e la w . . . .” (quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d) ); He av env. Tru stBan k C o., 1 18 F.3 d 7 35 , 73 8 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 7) (st at in g t ha t t he ex is te nc e o f “ in di vi du al de fen se s” 3fo r eac h c as e in th e p ro po se d c la ss “ is a pr op er fa ct or forco ns id erat io n” in th e Ru le 23 (b ) an al y si s) ; Hu ff v . N.D. Cas s C o. o f Ala ., 48 5 F .2d71 0, 7 14 (5t h C ir. 19 73 ) (en ba nc ) (“ It i s i ne sc ap ab le th atin so m e cas es th ere wi ll be ov erl ap be twee n the de m an ds of [ Ru le ] 23 (a) an d (b ) an d t he qu es ti on of wh ethe r [a] pl ai nt iff cansu ccee d o n t he m eri ts .”). 1 W e are no t p ers ua de d b y

Co as ta l’s cl ai m

th atSta te Farm

waiv edit s ri gh t t o as se rt i nd iv idua li zedde fen se s b y no t l is ti ng th em

in an“ it em iz edsp eci fic at io n” du rin g t he cla im s re vi ew pr oc es s. Fl a. St at . § 6 27 .73 4( 4) (b ). Flo rid a’s Mo to r Veh ic le No-F au ltLaw exp li ci tl y st at es th atin su rers m ay , “ atan y ti m e,” as se rt t ha t a cl ai m forbe ne fit s “ was un rel at ed , was n otm ed ic al ly neces sa ry , or was un reas on ab le .” Id . Becau se Sta te Farm canrai se th os e d efen se s “ atany ti m e,” th ey were p ro pe rly con si de redin th e d is tri ctco urt’s Ru le 23 an al y si s. Fi na ll y , we rejectCo as ta l’s co nt en ti on th atth e d is tri ctco urt re so lv edth e m eri ts of the leg al di sp ut e atth e h eartof t hi s ca se by usi ng lan gu ag e ab ou t

“pe rm is si bl e” an d “ im

pe rm is si bl e” ed it s. Whil e th e d is tri ctco urt’s l an gu ag e was no t as pre ci se as i t co ul d h av e b een , we are n otco nv in cedth atth e co urt m ean t t o, ordi d, u se th atlan gu ag e to an no un ce a re so lu ti onof t he m eri ts . Ins te ad , we th in k

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 be fore October 1, 1981. 4th e d is tri ctco urt u se d t ha t l an gu ag e to di ffer en ti at e b etween th os e cas es inwhi ch

St at e Farm

mig htha ve so m e in di vi du al iz ed , no n- ed it s d efen se to a cl ai m for be ne fit s fr om

th os e cas es in whi ch Sta te Farm m ig htno t h av e su ch a de fen se . By do in g s o, t he co urt re co gn iz edth atth e que st io n o f whe th er i nd iv idua li zed , no ned it s d efen se s co ul d b e rai se d b y Sta te Farm

was a n u nr es ol ve d i ss ue . AFFIRMED.

5