Opinion ID: 2788912
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Whether Common Questions of Law or Fact Predominate over Individual Ones

Text: [¶40] Sub-factor (E) of the fair and efficient adjudication factor requires that the district court weigh “whether common questions of law or fact predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.” N.D.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(1)(E). This consideration examines whether the class’s interests “are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.” Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor , 521 U.S. 591, 594 (1997). Predominance is “far more demanding” than the commonality requirement. Id. at 623-24. In Koch I , this Court said: There is no precise test to determine whether common questions predominate over individual claims. The individual claims need not be carbon copies of each other for common questions to predominate. ‘Predominate’ should not be automatically associated with ‘determinative’ or ‘significant,’ and consequently when one or more central issues to the action are common and can be said to predominate, the class action will be proper. 2000 ND 15, ¶ 22, 605 N.W.2d 153 (internal citations and quotations omitted). “[C]ommon issues need not be dispositive of the entire litigation, and class action status is not to be refused merely because individual fact issues will remain after the common issues are resolved.” Peterson v. Dougherty Dawkins, Inc. , 1998 ND 159, ¶ 22, 583 N.W.2d 626. Iowa, like North Dakota, has adopted the Uniform Class Action Rule. Its court held common questions do not predominate when “[t]rial as a class action would involve only limited amounts of evidence, and perhaps no evidence, relevant to all class members,” but “would involve large amounts of evidence relevant only to individual plaintiffs.” Quamme v. Advance Trading, Inc. , No. 99-0874, 2001 WL 540056, at  (Iowa Ct. App. May 23, 2001). [¶41] The Newberg treatise on class actions explained the predominance consideration under Federal Civil Rule 23 as follows: Issues are characterized as common or individual primarily based on the nature of the evidence: If “the members of a proposed class will need to present evidence that varies from member to member, then it is an individual question.” If “the same evidence will suffice for each member to make a prima facie showing,” or if the issue is “susceptible to generalized, class-wide proof,” then it is a common issue. 2 William B. Rubenstein, Newberg on Class Actions § 4.50 (5th ed. 2012). The treatise also states, “The predominance demand is stricter than [the] commonality requirement—it is not just that common issues exist, the predominance inquiry determines the further question of whether these are more prevalent than non- common issues.” Id. at § 4.51. [¶42] Here, the district court found sub-factor (E) did not favor certification. Although the court found that questions of law were applicable to all class members, it determined “[t]he questions of fact . . . vary for each individual proposed class member.” The court also found, “Obviously, each sales price of each individual automobile was different in each transaction, making interest calculations and determinations of damages, if any, an individualized process for each transaction.” [¶43] We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying this sub- factor.