Case Name: STATE of Louisiana ex rel. William J. GUSTE, Jr., Attorney General and Charles W. Tapp, Director, Governor's Consumer Protection Division in their official capacity and on Behalf of Barry Simon and all Louisiana Consumers similarly situated v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1978-09-05
Citations: 370 So. 2d 477
Docket Number: No. 61840
Parties: STATE of Louisiana ex rel. William J. GUSTE, Jr., Attorney General and Charles W. Tapp, Director, Governor’s Consumer Protection Division in their official capacity and on Behalf of Barry Simon and all Louisiana Consumers similarly situated v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION.
Judges: SANDERS, C. J., assigns additional concurring reasons.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 370
Pages: 477–491

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana ex rel. William J. GUSTE, Jr., Attorney General and Charles W. Tapp, Director, Governor’s Consumer Protection Division in their official capacity and on Behalf of Barry Simon and all Louisiana Consumers similarly situated v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION.
No. 61840.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Sept. 5, 1978.
On Rehearing April 9, 1979.
Rehearing Denied May 21, 1979.
Bernard, Micholet & Cassisa, Peter L. Bernard, Jr., Walter M. Babst, Joseph S. Palermo, Jr., Metairie (Otis M. Smith, Gen. Counsel, General Motors Corp., Detroit, Mich., Fulbright & Jaworski, Blake Tartt, Martin D. Beirne, Houston, Tex., of counsel), for defendant-applicant.
William A. Lovett, New Orleans, amicus curiae for La. Law Institute on La.’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Warren E. Mouledoux, First Asst. Atty. Gen., Winston G. Decuir, Charles L. Patin, Jr., Asst. Attys. Gen., Rebecca J. Bolton, Staff Atty., Baton Rouge, for plaintiffs-respondents.
Glenn R. Ducote, Baton Rouge, amicus curiae for Baton Rouge Consumer Protection Center.
Ronald L. Hersbergen, Baton Rouge, ami-cus curiae, LSU Law Center.

Opinion:
SUMMERS, Justice.
This suit was instituted by the petition of the Attorney General of Louisiana, the Director of the Governor's Consumer Protection Division, and Barry Simon, a Louisiana citizen who purchased a motor vehicle manufactured by General Motors Corporation with a substitute engine.
The action is brought in the name of the State of Louisiana and on behalf of Barry Simon and all Louisiana citizens similarly situated. A permanent injunction is sought to restrain General Motors from selling or offering to sell any motor vehicle which it manufactures, particularly the Oldsmobile "Delta 88", unless the Division of General Motors which actually manufactured the engine in the motor vehicle is disclosed to the potential purchaser prior to the sale.
It is alleged that the cause of action is based upon Section 8 of Article IV of the Louisiana Constitution, the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, (La.Rev.Stat. 51:1401-18), and Article 591 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Petitioners pray for trial by jury.
Petitioners assert they have reason to believe that General Motors has for some time engaged in unfair and deceptive acts, practices and methods in trade and commerce in Louisiana by selling automobiles, particularly 1,100 Oldsmobile "Delta 88's", in violation of Section 1405(A) of Title 51 of the Revised Statutes. These deceptive acts are said to violate Section 1405(A) of the Act in that there was a failure to disclose that a material substitution of an essential component (engine) had been made. Because of this, it is alleged, General Motors is liable to members comprising the class of Louisiana consumers who have been aggrieved by these practices and these consumers should be granted injunctive relief and restitution.
Claiming restitution under Section 1408 of the Act, petitioners pray for orders requiring the customer: 1) to return the vehicle purchased with a substitute engine and to order General Motors to return the purchase price or; 2) to require General Motors to replace the substituted engine with the proper engine at no cost to the customer; or 3) to return the vehicle to General Motors for a new auto with the proper engine; or 4) to order General Motors to pay each aggrieved consumer an amount in money damages equal to the diminution of the value of their vehicle and the inconvenience, past, present and future, suffered by the customer. Further, petitioners pray that the Court award each aggrieved consumer the actual damages sustained; order each vehicle recalled for removal of deceptive labels and require General Motors to direct the consumer to consult the owner's manual; and require changes in the owner's manual made necessary by the substituted engine.
A temporary restraining order was issued on April 19, 1977 prohibiting further substitutions unless General Motors disclosed to purchasers that the engine was other than one manufactured by the Oldsmobile Division of that company. Following the temporary restraining order General Motors stipulated that it had taken and would take the necessary steps to make these disclosures. As a result, by consent judgment, a preliminary injunction was entered on May 25, 1977.
Petitioners then moved for General Motors to show cause why this action should not be maintained or certified as a class action. Assuming certification of the class, the motion then prays for prohibition against communication by defendant with members of the class and for approval of a notice to all class members.
General Motors opposed the motion and moved that it be stricken as unauthorized procedure and that maintenance of this suit as a class action be disallowed. General Motors also moved that the claim of petitioner Barry Simon be dismissed, as joinder of his claim with the action of the State of Louisiana was not authorized. In addition, a plea of vagueness was filed.
After a hearing on June 1, 1977 the trial judge maintained the rule, certifying the case as a class action. When an application for rehearing was denied, defendant appealed to the Fourth Circuit.
In denying a motion to dismiss the appeal because the judgment was interlocutory, the Court of Appeal found that irreparable injury may result if the matter were not reviewed on appeal.
In considering the matter on appeal the Court of Appeal recognized the plaintiffs' right to seek injunctive relief, in a class action, on behalf of the State and on behalf of Barry Simon. The court further recognized the right of the plaintiffs to seek restitution and/or diminution, as such, in this class action, on behalf of Barry Simon, holding, however, that plaintiffs are not entitled, in a class action, to seek actual damages on behalf of Barry Simon. As thus amended, the judgment of the trial court was affirmed and the case was remanded for further proceedings. Defendant's application to this Court for certiorari was granted. 356 So.2d 1005 (1978).
The sole question before this Court on review is the propriety of the class action certification.
In Louisiana
"A class action may be instituted when the persons constituting the class are so numerous as to make it impracticable for all of them to join or be joined as parties, and the character of the right sought to be enforced for or against the members of the class is:
(1) Common to all members of the class; or
(2) Secondary, in the sense that the owner of a primary right refuses to enforce it, and a member of the class thereby becomes entitled to enforce the right." La.Code Civil Pro. art. 591.
Under this law the issues are whether the persons constituting the class are so numerous as to make it impracticable for all of them to be joined as parties and whether the character of the right sought to be enforced for or against the members of the class is common to all members of the class. No issue is presented involving the enforcement of a secondary right.
Aside from impracticability of joinder and commonality of the rights to be enforced, Louisiana requires that the party or parties who provoke a class action fairly insure adequate representation of all members. La.Code Civil Pro. art. 592.
General Motors contends that the essentials of commonality required by Article 591 is lacking and for that reason it was error to certify this case as a class action.
An unfair, deceptive practice such as the alleged substitution of engines would, under the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, present a question of law common to all who purchased automobiles with substitute engines. A common question of fact results because General Motors is the producer of all vehicles involved. But this does not, in itself, satisfy the statutory requirement of a common right. Stevens v. Board of Trustees of Police Pension Fund, 309 So.2d 144, 147 (La.1975); Note 50 Tul.L. Rev. 692 (1976). There are other essentials of commonality petitioners must establish as prerequisites to certification of this case as a class action.
The requirement of common character is only involved in true class actions. The hybrid and spurious class actions generally require no more connexity between the rights of the representative and of the absent members than the existence of a common question of law or fact, whereas the true class action requires additional and greater similarity between the claims of the members of the class. Only the true class action has been approved by Louisiana. Williams v. State of Louisiana, 350 So.2d 131 (La.1977); Stevens v. Board of Trustees of Police Pension Fund, supra.
This rule contemplates some relationship between the members of the class and its representative in addition to simply sharing the common question of law under the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law and the fact that they purchased vehicles produced by General Motors. No additional similarities are shown by this record. At this point of inquiry only substantial dissimilarities among the claims of the members of the class is evident. These dissimilarities are evidence of the failure of petitioners to shoulder the burden of establishing the existence of all true class action prerequisites.
In order to make a showing that other similar legal and factual relationships are common to the claims of the members of the class it is necessary to inquire into each and every purchase of a 1977 General Motors automobile with a substituted engine. A determination must then be made if any representations by their dealer or salesman to individual buyers were made regarding the source of the engine installed in the automobile purchased. Only in such an inquiry, by the testimony of the witnesses and parties to the sales transaction, could General Motors defend itself against the claim of unfairness and deceit. Only by such an inquiry could it be determined whether the purchaser was aggrieved or damaged. Only in such an inquiry could General Motors establish that many of the dealers and customers who sold and bought these vehicles had knowledge of the fact that General Motors used engines from its different divisions interchangeably in the automobiles it sold. Only by such an inquiry could it be determined whether purchasers were aggrieved, the extent to which they were aggrieved, or indeed, whether they desired redress on that account.
Another question to be answered with respect to each member of the class would be the performance of the engine acquired as compared to the performance each buyer expected from an engine produced by the division which produced his automobile. Examples of the variables involved in such comparisons are a Buick ordered with a 350 cubic inch V-8 Engine may contain a 350 cubic inch V-8 engine produced by General Motors Chevrolet, Oldsmobile or Buick Divisions; an Oldsmobile ordered with a 305 cubic inch V-8 engine may contain a 305 cubic inch V-8 engine produced by General Motors Chevrolet Division since Chevrolet is the only General Motors division producing 305 cubic inch V-8 engines. Likewise, any 1977 General Motors automobile ordered with a V-6 engine will be equipped with an engine produced by General Motors' Buick Division, since only Buick produces V-6 engines for General Motors passenger cars.
All General Motors divisions do not produce all the engines which may be ordered by purchasers of automobiles made by that division. The same is true of the 14,000 or more parts which make up any General Motors automobile. Many of the components other than engines may be produced by other divisions or by independent suppliers. Specific identification of the source of these components is not required and their use has long been accepted in the automotive industry, and other industries as well. The practice has been recognized by the Federal Trade Commission in In Re General Motors Corporation 53 FTC 1239 (1957), as legitimate, involving no deception, and necessary to America's mass production techniques.
As these recitations indicate, in some instances, the dealer who sells the car may well be the proper defendant because General Motors does not sell directly to the consumer. But this conclusion cannot be reached without a detailed analysis of each transaction to determine where liability, if any, lies.
Thus it is apparent that there are substantial differences among the purchasers of General Motors automobiles as to the representations made with respect to those purchases, the witnesses to the transactions and the defenses to be assei'ted to almost every claim. There are, moreover, substantial differences pertaining to the motives for the many purchases and the performance expected by different purchasers from different engines. Different defendants may also be appropriate to the claims of the alleged aggrieved parties. The claims of the members of the class are therefore uncommon.
In addition to this lack of commonality there are other significant factors which deny a predominant role to the common issue of law and fact, which arises because these alleged claims would all concern the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, and the fact that General Motors produced all automobiles involved. These other significant factors must be balanced against factors favoring class actions before the class action is deemed superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. One such factor requires that the class action be manageable. City of Philadelphia v. American Oil Co., 53 F.R.D. 45 (D.N.J.1971); Lah v. Shell Oil Co., 50 F.R.D. 198 (S.D.Ohio 1970).
Because of the large number of potential claimants, the probable diversity and complexity of their claims and the fact that most reside at considerable distance from the forum, the difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of the case as a class action outweigh the benefits that might be expected from a class action. The problem would undoubtedly be compounded by the jury trial petitioners seek. As the court observed in Schaffner v. Chemical Bank, 339 F.Supp. 329 (S.D.N.Y.1972).
"Parenthetically, the notion of utilizing a jury trial in a class suit containing the varied problems certain to abound herein, is enough to chill any further discussion of the required superiority of a class claim over other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. Such a trial, whether one trial or the multiple mini-trials probably required, would withdraw from all other usefulness for years to come the federal judicial personnel involved. Where one could muster jurors willing to devote themselves so indefinitely in time from their accustomed tasks, is puzzling. And one might relevantly ask — what public interest would be served by devoting the public's facilities in this way and what just purpose requires such a colossal mar-shalling of judicial resources and their supporting personnel?"
It should be noted here also, that the Attorney General's suit is not necessarily confined to the 1,100 Delta 88 Oldsmobiles. By its broad allegations and prayer it may conceivably involve all General Motors Automobiles sold in Louisiana in which substitute engines have been installed. The complexity of a suit involving such a situation would unquestionably make it unmanageable.
The principle was approved in Williams v. State of Louisiana, 350 So.2d 131 (La.1977), in these words:
"Great differences of individual issues and evidence involve the possibility of fragmentation of the class action in effect into multiple lawsuits, to the prejudice of its manageability and the judicial efficiency contemplated by this procedural device." 350 So.2d 136.
As the record discloses the 1,100 automobiles involved were purchased from dealers in every section of the State. Purchasers reside in cities, towns and villages throughout the length and breadth of Louisiana. The burdens imposed upon the court in supervising multiple discovery, pretrial hearings, adducing evidence and instructing ju ries would be enormous. This, together with the prevalence of myriad individual fact questions in the sales transactions militates against a class action certification.
For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed and set aside, and the right to maintain this suit as a class action is denied. The case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent with the reasons assigned.
SANDERS, C. J., assigns additional concurring reasons.
TATE, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
DIXON, J., dissents.
CALOGERO, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
DENNIS, J., concurs and assigns reasons.