## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 09

- 8025 P EL LA C OR PORAT I ON A ND P EL LA W I NDOWSAN D D O O RS, I NC ., P etitio ners , v. L EON ARD E. S AL T Z MAN, K ENT E UB ANK, T HO M AS R I VA, AN D W I L L I A M AND N AN CY E HO RN , I ND IVID UA LLY AND ON B EHALF OF A LL O THERS S IMILA RLY S IT UATED , R es pond ents .

Petition fo r Lea ve toAppeal fromthe United States DistrictCourt fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 1:06- cv-04481

—Jam es B. Z agel, Judg e.

S UB MI TT ED M AR CH 12, 2010

— D ECI DE D M AY 20, 2010

B efore P OSNER, W ILLIAM S an d T INDER, C ircu it Judges . P ER C UR I AM . P e l l a C o r p o r a t i o n ma n u f a c t u r e s win d o ws f o r h om es an d se lls th em th ro u gh its su b sid iar y, P ella W i nd ows and D oo rs , I nc. ( col l ecti vel y “ Pel l a”)

. Over2 N o. 09

- 8025 the l ast18 ye ar s, Pel l a has sol d m or e than si x m i l l i on a l u mi n u m- c l a d wo o d “ P r o L i n e ” ca s e me n twin d o ws na ti o nwi de. P la i nt i ff s, o wner s o fs tr uctur es c o nt aini ng th e w i n d o w s i n qu e s t i o n, a l l e g e th a tth e w i n d o ws co nt ain a des i g n defec t tha t per m i ts wat ert o s ee p b eh i nd the a l u m in u m c l add i ng and cause s the wood to ro t a t an acc el er ate d rat e. I n re sp onse to the num bero f w in d ow s n ee d in g re p lac em e n t, P ella cr ea te d th e “ P ella P r o L i n e C u s t o me r S e r v i c e E n h a n c e me n tP r o g r a m” to com pensate af f ecte d customer s. A ccor ding to Pl ainti ff s, Pel l a att em pted to m odi fy i ts w ar ra nty th r o ug h the p ro g r am butne ve r i nf o r m ed th e en d consum er s of the pr ogr am ’ s e xi ste nce o r ofthe defe ct. P l a i n t iffs b ro u gh t s u it a ga in st P ella , alleg in g t h at it co m m i tt ed co ns um erfr au d b y no t publ i cl y de cl ar i ng th e r o l e th atthe pur po r te d de si g n de fec t pl ay s i n a l l o wi ng ro t. A fterthe dist ri ct c ourtcer ti fied tw o cl ass es of pl aint i ff s, Pe l l a so ug htpe r m i ss i o n t o a ppea l the certifi cation pu rsu an t to Fe d e r al Ru le ofCivil Proc ed ure 23( f )

. W e g rant Pel l a’ s Rul e 2 3( f ) peti ti on forper m i ssi on to appeal and affi rm the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deci si on cer ti fyi ng the cl ass es.

I . B AC KGR OUND T he district cou rt certified tw o classes of consu m ers i n thi s a cti on. Fi rs t, i t ce rt i fi ed a nati onw i de cl ass under Feder alRule o f Ci vi l Pro cedure 23(b) ( 2) , co nsi sti ng o f al l c l as s m embe r s wh o ow n s tr uctur es c o nt aini ng P e l l a P r o L i n e a l u mi n u m- c l a d c a s e me n t wi n d o ws ma n u f a c t u r e d f r o m 1 9 9 1 t o th e p r e s e n t, wh o s e win d o wsN o. 09

- 8025 3 have not yetm ani fest ed th e all ege d defec t o r w hose w i nd ows have som e wood r ot b u t h ave not yetbee n r epl ac ed. The di st r i ct cour t f o und the c l as s m etthe cri ter i a o fRule 23 ( b) ( 2) bec ause Pel l a “ has a cted o r r efus ed to act on g r o unds tha t appl y g en er al l y t o the cl as s, s o tha t fina l i nj unc ti ve r el i efo r c o r r es po nding decl ar ato ryr el i efi s a pp ro pri ate r espect i ng the cl ass as a whole

. ” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b) ( 2)

. I fsucce ssful, thes e cl ass m embe r s woul d be en ti tl ed to si x d eclar at i o ns th a tt o g e th e r e s s e n t i a l l y de c l a r e t h a ta l l P r o L i n e win d o ws ha ve a de fec t w hich r es ul ts i n pr ematur e r o tt i nga nd thi s de fe c tr e qu i r e s di s c l o s ur e ; tha tP e l l a mo di fi e d i ts war r an tywi th o utno ti ce b y c r ea tingthe e nhan cement program ; thatPel l a m ust no ti fy o w ners o fthe defe ct; th at th e t en -ye ar lim ita tio n in t h e o rig in al w ar r a n t y is re m ove d; that Pel l a wil l r eas ses s a l l pri orwarra nty cl ai m s r el ate d to w oo d ro t; and that Pel l a, upon a c l ass m em ber ’ s r equest, wil l p ay the c osto fi nspecti on to de te r m i ne whethe r the woo d r o t i s m an i fes t, wi tha ny cove rage d ispu tes ad j ud icated b y a Spec ialM aster. This cl ass adj ud i cati on pro cess would be f ol l owed by an i nd ivi d ua l claim s p rocess i n w hich class m em bers m ay file a cl ai m with Pe l l a f orse rv i ce “ [ i ] fand w hen thei r w i nd ows m ani festwood ro t due to the al lege d defe ct. ” The di str i ct c ourtexpl ai ned that absent cl ass m em ber s a l so m ay bring i nd i vi du alsui ts f orm oney dam age s. The seco nd group o fcer ti fi ed cl ass es i s m uch na r r o we r a nd c o ns i s t s o fo nl y tho s e wh o have h ad a m ani festdefect and w hose window s a l re ady h av e be en re pla ced. T he court cer ti fi ed si x sta tewide li abi l i ty cl ass es4 N o. 09

- 8025

u n d er Fe d er al R u le of C ivil P ro c ed u r e 23 (b )(3) in C a l i f o r n i a , F l o r i d a , I l l i n o i s , Mi c h i g a n, Ne w J e r s e y, a nd N ew Y o r k, o n the the o r y tha tP e l l a v i o l a t e d s t a te consum erfra ud l aw s byf ai l i ng to d iscl ose the defe ct. Cer ti fi ca ti o n un der R ule 23 ( b) ( 3) r equi r es tha t “the que st i o ns o fl aw o r f ac t co m m o n to th e m embe r s o fthe c las s p re d om in at e o ve r an y q u es tio n s a ffec tin g on ly i nd i v i du a l me mbe r s , a nd tha ta c l a s s a c t i o n i s s up e ri or to o th era va i l ab l e m etho ds f o r the f ai r a nd e ffi ci en t ad j ud ication of th e con troversy.” Fed

. R

. C iv. P . 2 3 (b)( 3). The dis tr i ct c ourtexpl i ci tl y decl i ne d to ce rt i fy i ssues re l ate d to causat i on, dam age s, and sta tute ofl i m i tat i ons. Pel l a seek s inter l ocuto ryr evi ew o fthes e cl ass certifi cation s p urs ua nt to Fed eral R ule of CivilProced ure 23 (f), arg u in g, inte r alia , thatco nsum erfrau d c as es as a g e ne r a l ma t t e r a r e n o ta men a b l e t o c l a s s t r e a t m ent, due t o pr o bl ems wi thc au sa ti o n, r el i an ce , a nd c al cul at i ng dam age s. W e g ra nt the pet itio n i n or der t o add re ss th e con ten tion th at con s u m e r f r a u d clai m s are in ap p ro p ria te for c las s t re at m en t. Se eBla i rv. Equ i f ax C heck Se rv s., Inc. , 18 1 F

. 3d 832, 83 5 ( 7th Ci r. 19 99) ( ac ce pta nc e o fa n a ppea l i s appr o p riate t o “ f ac i l i ta te the dev el o pm en t o fthe l aw” g o ve r ni ngc l as s ac ti o ns )

. The p ar tie s’ a rg u m en ts are cle ar ly se t fort h in P ella ’s R u le 23 ( f ) pe ti ti o n a nd r es po nde nt s’ o ppo si ti o n, a nd no furth er briefing or argum en t i s n eces sary. W e affirm the di str i ct c ourt ’ s ce rt i fi cati on o fthe tw o cl ass es.

II. A N A L Y S IS Wh i l e c o n s u me r fr a ud c l a s s a c t i o n s p r e s e n tp r o b l e ms th atc o ur ts mustc ar efull y c o ns i derb efo r e g r an tingN o. 09

- 8025 5

cer ti fi cati on, ther e i s no t a nd sho uld notb e a ru le that th eyne ve rc anb e ce r ti fi ed. Pe l l a r el i es o n v ar io us deci si ons f rom this ci rcui t r eve rs i ng the gr ant o fcl ass ce r tif icati o n in c o ns um erfr au d a ct i o ns t o dr aw the broad conc lusion th at con su m e r frau d cases are inap p rop riate f or class t r eatm en t as a gene ral m atter. Bu t those cas es did noto pine that cl ass cer ti fi cati on was n e v erappropr i ate i n consum erfra ud cas es, o nl y that i t w as ina p p ro p ria te in t h e c irc u m st an c es be for e it

. See, e . g, Thor ogoodv. Se ars , Roe b uc k an d Co. , 5 47 F. 3d 742, 748 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( no co m m on i ssues o fl aw bec ause th er e d id nota ppea r t o b e a sing l e unde r st an di ngo fthe sig n ifica n c e o f lab el in g or ad ve rt isin g of t h e a lleg ed ly d ec ep tiv e s ta te m en ts ); O s hana v. Coca- Co la C o. , 472 F

. 3d 506, 51 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06) ( cl ass cer ti fi cati on i nap p ro p ria te bec au se th e prop osed class repres en tative’s clai m s w ere not typ ical of pu tative class); In reBr i dges tone/Fires tone, Inc. , 288 F. 3d 1012 , 10 18- 19 (7 th Ci r. 20 02) ( ti re - defe ct c l ass ac ti o n un m an ag eabl e g i ve n n um er o us di ffer en t des i g ns of al leged ly d efective tires and varying recalls)

. I n Thor ogood, the cour t noted thatther e a re ti m es w h en c las s ce rt ifica tio n is “a sen sib le an d le g ally perm i ssib le alte rnat i ve to re m i tting al l the buyer s t o i nd i vi du al sui ts each of w hi ch w oul d c ost or d er s of m agni tude m or e to l i ti gat e than the c l ai m s would be worth to the pl ai nti ff s. ” 5 47 F.3d at 748. W e r eas ser t that p ro p os itio n h er e an d h old th at th e d ist ric t c ou rtp ro p er ly w ei ghed the f acts befor e i t a nd exer ci sed i ts disc re ti on to concl ud e that the c om m on pre dom i nant i ssue of whethe r the wi ndo ws s ufferfr o m a s i ng l e, i nhe r en t d esi g n de fec t l ea di ngt o woo d r o t i s th e es se nc e o fthe dispute and i s bett er re sol ved by cl ass tre at m ent.6 N o. 09

- 8025 The di st r i ctc o ur t r ea so nabl y de te rm ined th atthe i nd i vi du al i ssues that necess ar i l y ar i se i n a con su m er f r au d a ct i o n wo uld n o t pr ev en t cl as s tr ea tmento fthe n ar ro w liab ility iss u es h er e. C las s t re at m en t o f co n su m er frau d ca se s c an ce rt ain ly prese nt di ffi cul ti es, and cour ts shoul d consi der these concerns be for e deci ding to gr ant cl ass cer ti fi cati on, as the di str i ct c ourtdi d bel ow. One con c ern i s the r i sk of er r o r i n h av i ngc o m pl ex i ss ue s th atha ve en o r m o us conse quences dec ided by o ne tr i ero ff act ra therthan let tin g a co n se n s u s e m er ge from m u ltip le t ria ls. M ej dre ch v . Me t

- Co i l S y s . Corp. , 319 F.3d 91 0, 912 (7th Cir. 2003); s e eal s o Thorogood, 54 7 F

. 3d at 745. T h is is n ot a c ase w here the i ssues ar e s o com ple x, and Pel l a does not cl ai m thatthe conse quences a re so hi gh, thata decentr al i zed pro cess o fm ult i ple tr i als i s nec ess ar y for an accu rate evalu ation of th e c la im s. T he district cou rt h eld th at th e com m on alit y req u ire m e n t o fR u le 23 (a)( 2) a n d th e p re d om in an c e re q u ire m en t o f R u le 23 ( b) ( 3) a r e bo ths at i sfi ed be ca us e th e centra l que st i o ns i n th e litig at ion a re t h e sa m e for a ll cl ass m em bers

— w hetherthe Pro Line w i nd ows suffer ed fro m ani nhe r en t defec t when th eyl eft th e f ac to r y, whethe r a nd w he n P ell a kne w of th is defect, the scop e of Pe ll a’s w ar ra nty, and the nature o f the Pro Line Cu sto m er Enha nc ementPr o g r am an d whethe r i t am en ded th e w ar ra nty. I n contr astto Thor ogoodwher e th ere w er e no com m on i ssues o fl aw o r f act and th e co urt questi oned wh e th e r a n y o n e b e s i d e s th e p l a i n t i ffs h a r e d th e s a me concern s w ith the product, her e there i s a n eco nom y t oN o. 09

- 8025 7 cl as s tr ea tmento fthe quest i o n whe th erthe Pr o Li ne wi ndo ws s uffer f r o m a b as i c des i g n de fec t, the r es o l ut i o n o f w hi chha s th e po te nt i alt o e l i m i na te the ne ed f o r mul ti pl e, po te nt i al l y ex pen si ve e xpe r t te st i m o ny and proo fthatwould cos t co nsi derabl y m or e t o l itig ate than the c l ai m s would be worth t o the pl ai nti ff s. Se eThor ogood, 547F.3d at74 8. A c c or d in g t o c las s c ou n se l, th ey alread y hav e been cont acte d by over 350 con su m ers wh o h a v e e x p e r i e n c e d th e s a me w o o d r o tp r o b l e ms setf or th i n the com pla i nt. W here there ar e com m on i ssues and the ac curacyo fth e resol uti on o ftho se i ssues “i s unl i kel y t o be e nhanced by repea ted p ro ceedi ngs, then i t m ake s g oo d sen se , e speci al l y when the cl ass i s l ar ge, to res o l ve tho se i ss ue s i n o ne fel l s woo p whi l e l ea ving the r em ai ni ng, cl ai m ant- specifi c i ssues to i nd i vi du al f ol l ow-on pr oce edi ngs. ” M ej dre ch , 319 F.3d at91 1. Anothe r conc ern i n c o ns um erfr au d c as es i s th e i ss ue o fpr o xi m at e ca us at i o n. Pel la ar g ue s th att o o many i nd i vi du al v ar i ances between cl ass m em ber s e xi st, because wood can r ot f orm any r eas ons othe r than window desi gn a n d i s a ffecte d by s peci fi c co nd i ti ons such as im p ro p er ins ta llat ion . Pr ox im at e c a u se , ho w ev er , i s necess ar ily an i nd i vi du ali ssue and the nee d fo r i nd i v i du a l p r o o fa l o ne do e s no tn e c e s s a r i l y p r e c l ud e cl as s ce r ti fi ca ti o n. 5 W i l l i am B. Rub en st ein, Alb aC o n t e a nd H erber t B. N ew ber g, N ewbe rg on Cl as s Act i ons § 17. 28, pp . 41 3- 14 ( 4th e d. 200 2)

. A d i str i ct courth as the di scr eti on to spl i t a ca se by ce r ti fy i ng a cl as s f o r so m e i ss ue s, b ut no t o th er s, o r b y c er ti fy i nga c l as s f o r l i ab i l i tya l o ne w here dam age s o r causat i on m ay re quir e ind i vi du al i zed as se ss m en ts . Se e, e.g ., A rreola v. G o din ez , 54 6 F

. 3d 788, 79 9- 80 0 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ); C arnegi e v. Household Int’ l, Inc. , 37 6 F

. 3d8 N o. 09

- 8025 65 6, 66 1 ( 7th Ci r . 20 04 )

. Under th e di st r i ct co ur t’ s p la n, c las s m em ber s s ti l l m ust pro ve i nd i vi du ali ssues o f c au sa tio n an d d am ag es . W h ile it is a lm os t in ev ita b le that a cl ass wil l i ncl ud e s om e p eo p le who have not been i nj ured bythe defe nd ant’ s co nd uct be cause at th e outset ofthe case m any m em ber s m ay be unknown, orthe f acts bear i ng o n thei r cl ai m s m ay b e unknow n, thi s pos sibi l i ty d oe s n otp re c lu d e c las s c er tific at ion

. Koh e n v . Pa c i f ic Inv. M anag e m e ntCo. LL C, 571 F.3d 672, 677 (7th C ir. 2009), ci t i ng1 A lba C on te & H erb er t N ew b er g, N e w b erg o n C la ss Act i ons § 2 : 4, pp. 73- 75 ( 4th e d. 2002 )

. The nar ro w way i n whi ch th e di st r i ct co ur t defi ne d th e cl as ses here el i m i nates co ncer n that th e defi ni ti ons ar e o verbro ad or i ncl ud e a gr eatm any people w ho have suffer ed no i nj ury. Pel l a a l so ar gues that cer ti fi cati on under Rul e 2 3(b) ( 2) wa s inappr o pr i at e be ca us e th i s i s r ea l l y a c as e ab o ut m oney, and the cl ass does notseek f i nal i nj uncti ve re l i ef as the r ule r equi re s, but onl y a s a st op on the way t o dam age s whic h indiv i du al s m ust then pursue. Rather th ans i m pl i fy i ngthe l i ti g at i o n, Pe l l a o bj ec ts tha t th e p rop osed de clarations con side red by the district cou rt as inj uncti ve re l i efar e r eal l y i l l usor y a nd wil l m ult i ply, an d ev en req u i r e, in d ivid u al litig at ion . H ow ev er , Pe lla m i sc ha r ac te r i ze s th e effec t o fthe s i x de cl ar at i o ns c on te m p l at ed by th e d ist ric t c ou rt . I t is n otn ec es sa rily the c a s e tha ti nd i v i du a l l i t i g a t i o n wo ul d b e r e qu i r e d. The cour t spl i t the pu rchas er s of w i nd ows i nto tw o gr oups: thos e who have re pla ced thei r w i nd ows, and thos e w ho h ave n ot. T hos e w ho h ave rep laced th eir w ind ow s are proper l y m em ber s ofthe ( b) ( 3) cl ass bec ause they re quir e the award ofdam age s t o m ake t h em wh ol e. T h os e w h o h av e n otr ep lac ed t h eir w in d ow s b u t m igh t inN o. 09

- 8025 9 th e futu re beca us e of th e pu rp orted de sign fl aw are p ro p er ly m em b er s o f a (b )(2) c las s. Su c h p u rc h as er s w ou ld wa n td e c l a r a ti o n s th a tth e r e i s a n i n h e r e n td e s i g n fl a w, th at th e w ar ra n ty ex te n d s to th em an d s p e c i fic p e r f o r ma n c e o fth e wa r r a n t y t o r e p l a c e th e wi ndo ws w he n t h e y m an ifest th e d efect, orfinal equ itable rel ief

. C f. All en v . Int’ l Tr u c k& E ng ine C o rp . , 35 8 F

. 3d 469, 47 1 (7t h C ir. 2 00 4) (su gg es tin g c las s t re at m en t o f th e e q u ita b le re l i efto be f ol l owed byi nd i vi du al dam age pro ceedi ngs w h er e t h e e q u ita b le r e lief so u gh t is th e s am e fo r all c las s m em b er s). I fthe di st r i ctc o ur t fi nds i n f av o r o fthe c l as s an d enter s a l l si x decl ar ati ons, the cum ula ti ve effect w i l l be an enti tl em ent t o have thei r w i nd ows re pla ced, and the (b) ( 2) cl ass wil l bene fi t uni f or m l y fro m the decl ar ati ons. The conte m pla ted pro cess i n w hi ch m em ber s m ay fi l e a cl ai m wi thPe l l a f o r s er vi ce do es not appe art o b e an y d iffer en t t h an th e p r o c e s s by w h ich an ow n er w ou ld file a cl ai m with Pe l l a under a w ar ra nty. H avi ng to adj ud i cate c o v e r ag e is su es w ith a Sp ec ial M as te r is n ec es sa ry on ly ifthere is a disp ut e; it w ou ld n ot be requ ired for every class m em ber as Pe ll a su ggests

. M orever, th e d istri ct cou rt s p e c i fi c a l l y p r o v i d e d th a t“ [ t ] h e r e i s n o s i d e -b y - s i de re cove ryher e. ” I t e x p lai ned that cl ass m em ber s whose defec t ha s no t y etmani fes te d a r e no t i nc l ud ed i n the damag es c l as s; o nl y o nc e th e wi ndo ws exp eri en ce a ny m an ifes t d efe c t, if ev er , w ill th e c las s m em b er s b e a b le to su bm it a claim to Pell a for rep air. F i na l l y, Pe l l a su g g es ts tha t th e m anne r i n which th e dist ri ct cour t propos es to proce ed w i l l vi ola te i ts S ev en thAm en dm en t rights be ca us e f ac ts f o und b y the10 N o. 09

- 8025 cl ass j ury w oul d necess ar i l y b e r evi ew ed by the ind i vi du al j ur i e s . P e l l a a r g u e s th a tth e fi r s tj u r y mu s td e c i de how m uchthe de s i g n o fthe wi nd o ws , a s o pp o s e d t o othe r f acto rs , co ntributed to r ot and that the i nd i vi du al j ur i es mustthe n c o ns i derthe sa m e i ss ue l at er, b ut proxi m ate cause i s a n in d ivid ual i ssue and w i l l notbe add re sse d by the class j ury. The cl ass j ury w i l l be ask ed to deci de onl y i fther e w as a n i nherentdesi gn defect prese nt i n th e w i nd ows w hen theyl eft the f acto ry, whethe r Pe l l a ha d a duty t o di sc l o se the d efect, a nd w hetherPel l a a tte m p ted to m odi fy i ts w ar ra nty. I ssues ofcausa ti on a n d d am age s i ssues , such a s whether that defec t ca us ed th e damag e to a pa r ti cul arwind o w and h ow m u c h th e d es ign c on tr ibu te d to th e ro t, w ill be handl ed i nd i vi du al l y. “Th u s a cl ass pro ceedi ng f or equi tabl e r el i efvi nd i cate s the seventh am endm ent a s full y a s do i nd i vi du altr i al s, i s no m or e c om ple x than i nd ivid ual tr i al s, ye t pr oduces be nefi ts com pared with the o ne- perso n-a t- a- ti m e par adig m . ” A llen , 35 8 F

. 3d at 472. P e l l a rais es ot h er m in or co n c er n s t h at rela te p rim ar ily to th e m anage abi l i ty ofthe cl ass , but none o fthes e demons tr at e th atthe di st r i ctc our t ab us ed i ts di sc r et i o n. U nd er Rule 23 , di str i ct c ourt s a re per m i tte d to “devi se i m ag i na ti ve s o l ut i o ns t o pr o bl ems c r eate d b y the prese nce i n a c l ass act i on l i ti gat i on o fi nd i vi du al dam age s i ssues . ” C arnegi e, 376 F.3d at66 1; s e eal s o L e m on v. Int’l U nio n o

f O per. E ng ineers , 216 F.3d 577, 582 (7th Cir. 20 00 )

. I n mak i ngthe de ci si o n t o c er ti fy the c l asses, the dist r i c t j ud g e ha d b e f o r e hi m h un dr e ds o f pa g e s o f l ega l br i efi ng, as w el l as h und re ds ofpages o fdocum ents, d ep ositi on tran script s, an d exp ert rep orts. Plaintiff s po i nto uttha t th eys ubmi tt ed a sa m pl e tr i alpl anwi thaN o. 09

- 8025 11

com parat i ve l ega l anal ysi s o fea ch subcl ass st ate , s ug g e s t i o ns o fho w th e c a s e c o ul d b e t r i e d in ph a s e s , a nd a st at emento fc l as s st r uctur e an d r emedi es . Ev enthe cer ti fi cati on o fthe si x sta te subcl asses d em onst ra tes that th e d ist ric t c ou rtc ar efu lly c on sid er ed h ow t h e c as e w ou ld proce ed, expl i ci tl y fi nd i ng tha t the co nsum erpro tect i on acts o fthes e s i x sta tes have nearly identi calel em ents an d d ec lin in g to c er tify a se ve n th st at e s u b c las s t h at w ou ld have re quir ed a s ubj ecti ve anal ysi s.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON The dis tr i ct c ourt ’ s deci si on t o certi fy the two cl ass es in th is c as e d id n otco n tr ad ict circ u it p re c ed en t. W h ile consum erfra ud cl ass act i ons prese nt chal l enges that a d istri ct cou rt m us t carefully consid er, th e re are c i r c u ms t a n c e s w h e r e c e r t i fi c a t i o ni s a p p r o p r i a t e . We c o n c l u d e th a tth i s c a s e i s o n e o fth o s e c i r c u ms t a n c e s . We G RANTPel l a’ s Rul e 2 3(f) peti ti on f orper m i ssi on t o appea l a nd A FFIRM the de ci si o n o fthe di st r i ctc o urt cer ti fyi ng the cl ass es.

5- 20- 10