Opinion ID: 1107705
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Law Applicable to Class Actions

Text: In order to obtain class certification, [the plaintiffs] must establish all of the criteria set forth in Rule 23(a), [Ala. R. Civ. P.,] and at least one of the criteria set forth in Rule 23(b). Ex parte AmSouth Bancorporation, 717 So.2d 357, 362 (Ala.1998). Rule 23(a) provides: `(a) Prerequisites to a Class Action. One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all only if (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.' Rule 23(b) provides, in pertinent part: `(b) Class Actions Maintainable. An action may be maintained as a class action if the prerequisites of subdivision (a) are satisfied, and in addition: `. . . . `(3) the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. The matters pertinent to the findings include: (A) the interest of members of the class in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions; (B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already commenced by or against members of the class; (C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular forum; (D) the difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of a class action.' In reviewing a class-certification order, this Court looks to see whether the trial court exceeded its discretion in entering the order; however, we review de novo the question whether the trial court applied the correct legal standard in reaching its decision. Reynolds Metals Co. v. Hill, 825 So.2d 100, 104 (Ala. 2002). `We note that an abuse of discretion in certifying a class action may be predicated upon a showing by the party seeking to have the class-certification order set aside that the party seeking class action certification failed to carry the burden of producing sufficient evidence to satisfy the requirements of Rule 23. Ex parte Green Tree Fin. Corp., 684 So.2d 1302, 1307 (Ala.1996). Thus, we must consider the sufficiency of the evidence submitted by the plaintiff customers.'  Compass Bank v. Snow, 823 So.2d 667, 672 (Ala.2001). If [the plaintiffs] failed to meet the evidentiary burden as required by Rule 23, then the trial court exceeded its discretion in certifying a class action. Smart Professional Photocopy Corp. v. Childers-Sims, 850 So.2d 1245, 1248 (Ala.2002). As noted above, Rule 23(b)(3) requires a finding that `questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.' This requirement `tests whether proposed classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.' Reynolds Metals, 825 So.2d at 104 (quoting Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 623, 117 S.Ct. 2231, 138 L.Ed.2d 689 (1997)). In making this determination, `[c]ourts examine the substantive law applicable to the claims and determine whether the plaintiffs presented sufficient proof that common questions of law or fact predominate over individual claims.' Voyager Ins. Cos. v. Whitson, 867 So.2d 1065, 1071 (Ala.2003). `When individual issues predominate over the common claims, manageability of the action as a class is not possible.' Voyager Ins., 867 So.2d at 1077. Therefore, this Court must determine whether [the plaintiffs] presented sufficient evidence that common questions of law or fact predominate over individual issues as to each of [the plaintiffs'] claims. University Fed. Credit Union v. Grayson, 878 So.2d 280, 285-86 (Ala.2003). Section 6-5-641(e), Ala.Code 1975, provides, in pertinent part, as follows: When deciding whether a requested class is to be certified, the court shall determine, by employing a rigorous analysis, if the party or parties requesting class certification have proved its or their entitlement to class certification under Ala. R. Civ. P. 23. The burden of coming forward with such proof shall at all times be on the party or parties seeking certification, and if such proof shall not have been adduced, the court shall not order certification of the class. In making this determination, the court shall analyze all factors required by Ala. R. Civ. P. 23 for certification of a class and shall not order certification unless all such factors shall have been established. This Court has explained: In determining whether the questions of law or fact common to the class members predominate over those questions that affect only individual class members, the court must initially identify the substantive law applicable to the case and identify the proof that will be necessary to establish the claim. Alabama v. Blue Bird Body Co., 573 F.2d 309, 316 (5th Cir.1978). This consideration is particularly important in cases where one or more of the claims will require proof of subjective factors. . . .  Ex parte Green Tree Fin. Corp., 723 So.2d 6, 9 (Ala.1998). We have held that the necessity of individualized testimonies from each class member to prove an essential element of the cause of action defeats class certification. Reynolds Metals Co. v. Hill, 825 So.2d 100 (Ala.2002); Compass Bank v. Snow, [823 So.2d 667 (Ala.2001)]. Smart Prof'l Photocopy Corp. v. Childers-Sims, 850 So.2d 1245, 1249 (Ala.2002). The mandate to identify the `substantive law applicable to the case' requires more than a simple statement of which state's law governs; the trial court is required to identify the elements of the claims to be certified and to discuss, in the context of the class-certification criteria, the proof the plaintiffs must present to establish each of those elements. It is only by specifically discussing the elements of each claim in the context of the Rule 23 criteria that the trial court may determine whether the plaintiffs can establish the Rule 23(a) and 23(b) elements of class certification. See e.g., Mann [v. GTE Mobilnet of Birmingham Inc., 730 So.2d 150, 152 (Ala.1999)]; Ex parte Green Tree Fin. Corp., 723 So.2d 6 [(Ala.1998)]. Bill Heard Chevrolet Co. v. Thomas, 819 So.2d 34, 41-42 (Ala.2001). In connection with the plaintiffs' burden to demonstrate that class certification is proper, [t]he trial court may not merely rely on assurances of counsel that any problems with predominance or superiority . . . can be overcome. Ex parte Green Tree Fin. Corp. 723 So.2d at 10. `If serious manageability problems exist, it is no answer to say that they will be resolved later in some unexplained or uncertain manner.' Compass Bank v. Snow, 823 So.2d 667, 675 (Ala.2001) (quoting with approval an unpublished order issued by a federal district judge in a case involving claims virtually identical to those asserted in Snow ). If a named plaintiff has not been injured by the wrong alleged in the complaint, then no case or controversy is presented and the plaintiff has no standing to sue either on his own behalf or on behalf of a class. Ex parte Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 721 So.2d 1135, 1137 (Ala.1998). This Court has noted that `[t]he definition of a class cannot be so broad that it includes persons without standing to bring the action on their own behalf. Each class member must have standing to bring the suit in his own right.' Slaughter v. Levine, 598 F.Supp. 1035, 1041 (D.Minn.1984) (emphasis added), aff'd, 801 F.2d 288 (8th Cir.1986), rev'd sub nom. on other grounds, Gardebring v. Jenkins, 485 U.S. 415, 108 S.Ct. 1306, 99 L.Ed.2d 515 (1988); see also Rios v. Marshall, 100 F.R.D. 395, 407 (S.D.N.Y.1983) (`class definition . . . should be limited to those individuals who were adversely affected by the practices of which the named plaintiffs complain'). Ex parte Central Bank of the South, 675 So.2d 403, 406-07 (Ala.1996). There would be no reason to certify a class on a claim that is not viable. Mutual Sav. Life Ins. Co. v. James River Corp. of Virginia, 716 So.2d 1172, 1180 (Ala.1998).