Opinion ID: 1381117
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Did the Trial Court Err in Deciding the Merits of the Action Before Deciding Whether to Certify the Fishermen's Class?

Text: The fishermen brought their suit as a class action from the time of the original complaint. Early in the case, the plaintiffs moved the court for class certification and the court issued an order finding that two of the requirements of a class action had been met; namely that the class of plaintiffs was so numerous that joinder of all members would be impracticable and that there were questions of law common to the class. Alaska R.Civ.P. 23(a)(1), (2). Later, the plaintiffs again moved for class certification. While this motion was still pending, the defendant associations and the state filed a motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs replied with their own summary judgment motion. The court then gave its partial summary judgment order in favor of the plaintiffs. Finally, the trial court subsequently certified the class. The defendants maintain the trial court erred in entering the judgment on the merits before it certified the class action. They rely on Civil Rule 23(c)(1), which provides in relevant part: As soon as practicable after the commencement of an action brought as a class action, the court shall determine by order whether it is to be so maintained. Relying on the identical federal rule in Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 94 S.Ct. 2140, 40 L.Ed.2d 732 (1974), the United States Supreme Court held that a trial court may not hold a preliminary hearing on the merits of a case to determine whether a plaintiff is likely to prevail on his claims so as to allow the imposition of the costs of class notice on the defendant. Id. at 177-78, 94 S.Ct. at 2152, 40 L.Ed.2d at 748-49. Defendants contend this holding implies that under no circumstances may a court decide the merits of a case before passing on the issue of class certification. While some courts have indeed required that class certification precede a determination of the merits, [11] it is apparent that any right to such a procedure can be waived, either expressly [12] or impliedly. [13] We have no difficulty finding a waiver under the facts of this case. The plaintiffs diligently sought adjudication of the class action issues by twice moving for certification. The defendants initiated summary judgment proceedings while plaintiffs' second motion for certification of the class action was pending. Under these circumstances, the trial court did not err in ruling on the merits and then certifying the class.