Opinion ID: 1843606
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Certification and Validity of Liability Phase

Text: The Pinto intervenors argue that this Court certified their three putative classes ex mero motu. Consistent with this view, they proposed to Judge Greenhaw that Pinto had rendered unnecessary a motion for class certification, and, consequently, that no findings or actions by the trial court were required. Harper Brief, at 38. The trial court rejected this argument and ordered the Pinto intervenors to file a motion for class certification. Id. On October 3, 1995, the Pinto intervenors filed a motion for certification of the three classes for whom they sought intervention in Pinto. In their motion, they reiterated their argument that trial-court certification was unnecessary, and, moreover, move[d] ... to reopen the class certification of the Harper class. The Harper class responded with a motion opposing certification of the putative Pinto classes. Harper's motion challenged the Pinto intervenors' construction of this Court's holding in Pinto, stating:  No order exists certifying the Pinto class[es] as required by Rule 23(c)(1). Indeed, prior to the Pinto decision, no motion was ever filed in either this court or the Supreme Court seeking certification. The Pinto appellants in the Supreme Court did not ask the court to certify their classes. Indeed, they expressly asked the Supreme Court to leave the question up to this court on remand. Even if under Rule 23 a class could be certified by implicationand it cannot it would be inappropriate for this court to conclude that the Alabama Supreme Court impliedly granted appellants relief beyond the relief sought. The precise holding of the Supreme Court is that `Pinto and Anderton are entitled to intervene.' [662 So.2d at 900.] This holding does not even suggest, much less hold, that class certification is appropriate. Indeed, the Supreme Court's decision concerns Rule 24, not rule 23 .... The Supreme Court's opinion does contain some language about the desirability of hearing the views of the `classes' represented by Pinto. However, a fair reading of the opinion reveals that the Supreme Court was simply expressing its interest in ensuring that divergent views be heard. Given that the Pinto individuals will be represented, those views will be heard. (Emphasis added.) The motion also opposed the certification of the putative classes on the grounds, among others, (1) that no facts were alleged or demonstrated as to the considerations of numerosity, commonality, or typicality required by Rule 23; (2) that representation by the same counsel of all three classes would result in a conflict of interest; and (3) that no showing had been made as to the resources or experience of the Pinto intervenors' counsel to represent the classes adequately. On February 6, 1996, the trial court denied the Pinto intervenors' motion for certification, in an order stating in part: A motion to withdraw was filed on behalf of primary counsel for the Pinto Plaintiffs and co-counsel also filed a Motion to Continue regarding class certification on the ground that additional counsel needed to be retained. At the hearing the Pinto plaintiffs were given 30 days to associate new counsel, however, no further pleadings have been filed. Inasmuch as the requisites of Rule 23, A.R.C.P., Code of Alabama 1975, have not been met the Court cannot certify the classes the Pinto Plaintiffs seek to represent but will allow them to remain as individual ... plaintiffs.  The attorney for the Anderton Plaintiffs-Intervenor[s] was not present at the hearing and has not filed a motion requesting class certification. It is without question that individual taxpayers have standing to bring an action on behalf of other taxpayers when state funds are involved and the Anderton Plaintiffs as previously stated will also be allowed to remain as individual ... plaintiffs in this matter. (Emphasis added.) On February 7, 1996, the Pinto intervenors moved for reconsideration of that order. Their motion stated that they had been successful in associating counsel experienced in class actions and requested an opportunity to present evidence for class certification. On March 11, 1996, the trial court vacated its February 6, 1996, order to the extent that it denied class certification. The court reasoned that the issue of class certification should not be considered until the matters pending on appeal [to this Court were] resolved. As to whether this Court certified the Pinto intervenors' putative classes ex mero motu, Harper 's interpretation of Pinto is correct. That case presented no issue as to whether the requirements of Rule 23 had been satisfied. In fact, the opinion is devoid of any reference to Rule 23. Instead, we focused solely on the abstract legal question of whether this action was of the genre of actions theoretically maintainable as class actions. We merely assumed, arguendo, of course, that the putative representatives could establish all of the criteria set forth in Rule 23(a) and one of the criteria set forth in Rule 23(b). Ex parte Gold Kist, Inc., 646 So.2d 1339, 1341 (Ala.1994). Indeed, the scope and complexity of this litigation render such an approach particularly inappropriate here. The complexity and nature of this litigation raise, as Harper correctly observes, serious questions as to the experience and resources of any counsel selected to represent the Pinto intervenors' classes, as well as issues regarding potential conflicts of interest. The trial court was correct, therefore, in requiring the Pinto intervenors to comply with the mandates of Rule 23(a) and (b) in that forum. On remand of this cause, should it ultimately become necessary for the trial court to proceed further with this action, it shall then make a determination ... as to compliance with Rule 23(a) and (b), Rule 23(c), committee comments, guided not only by this Court's holding in Pinto, but also by the facts presented to it at that time. In other words, Pinto should not be understood as preempting all discretion in the trial court as to those matters committed to that court, First Alabama Bank v. Martin, 381 So.2d 32 (Ala.1980), such as the precise scope and contours of the classes. The outcome of this inquiry still turns on compliance with Rule 23 and is not compelled in its specific details by Pinto.