Opinion ID: 1869498
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: GM's Choice-of-Law Argument

Text: Here, Bryant's complaint includes claims of breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, violation of the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and fraudulent concealment of a product defect. General Motors argues that the circuit court erred in failing to consider the conflicts of laws present among the states in which GM has sold the trucks and SUVs alleged to have the parking brake defect. Before the hearing on class certification, GM presented the court with a thorough analysis of conflicts of laws regarding the state-law fraud claims, breach of warranty, applicable statutes of limitations, and unjust enrichment. It appears from a thorough reading of the circuit court's fifty-one page class certification order that the court in fact reviewed and considered GM's choice-of-law arguments, but, nevertheless, found that Bryant had satisfied the class-certification element of predominance. The circuit court went on to declare as a matter of law that our court has interpreted Rule 23 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure as precluding a choice-of-law analysis at the class-certification stage and stated without citation that [i]n truth, there is no greater merits-intensive determination than the one regarding choice of law. Choice of law has everything to do with a case's merits. The majority opinion ratifies the circuit court's declaration and thereby cuts off any future possibility that a conflict of laws could defeat a finding of predominance. With this I cannot agree.