Opinion ID: 2071130
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Lonza B. Cutchin

Text: Mr. Cutchin started smoking when he was fifteen or sixteen years old and living in North Carolina. He moved to Maryland before he was twenty-five years old. He smoked his first cigarette because most of the time everybody else was smoking, the teenagers, I thought it was a sport. He rolled his own cigarettes at that time, and later smoked Camels and Chesterfields. When he moved to Maryland, he was smoking Camels and possibly Chesterfields. He quit when he was diagnosed with cancer around 1994. He tried to quit smoking between 1948 and 1988. He suffers from lung cancer and COPD. Each of the plaintiffs' cases is factually distinct. This is not fatal to a finding of typicality, however. See Broin v. Philip Morris Companies, 641 So.2d 888, 892 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1994) (noting that the presence of factual differences will not defeat typicality). Although we do have concerns with the degree of variance between each of the named plaintiff's claims, we feel that these differences are more properly addressed during our predominance inquiry. Importantly, Petitioners do not allege that class representatives would be antagonistic to class members in any way. At this stage in the litigation, Respondents have sufficiently alleged that the same unlawful conduct was directed at or affected both the named plaintiff[s] and the class[es] sought to be represented, 1 NEWBERG, supra, § 3.13, at 3-77. The Circuit Court's ruling that the typicality requirement was satisfied was not an abuse of discretion.
The adequacy of representation prerequisite actually addresses two related concerns, ensuring that both the class representatives as well as class counsel are adequate to represent the interests of all class members. This last of the initial preconditions to class certification thus requires first  that the named plaintiff have no conflicts of interest with class members and that he or she prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the class. 1 NEWBERG, supra, § 3.01, at 3-5. As stated by the United States Supreme Court in Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 117 S.Ct. 2231, 138 L.Ed.2d 689 (1997): The adequacy inquiry under Rule 23(a)(4) serves to uncover conflicts of interest between named parties and the class they seek to represent. [A] class representative must be part of the class and `possess the same interest and suffer the same injury' as the class members. Id. at 625-26, 117 S.Ct. at 2250-51 (quoting East Tex. Motor Freight System, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395, 403, 97 S.Ct. 1891, 1896, 52 L.Ed.2d 453 (1977) (in turn quoting Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208, 216, 94 S.Ct. 2925, 2930, 41 L.Ed.2d 706 (1974))) (other citation omitted) (alteration in Amchem ). See also 7A WRIGHT, MILLER, & KANE, supra, § 1766, at 302-303 (stating that the general standard is that the representatives must be of such character as to assure the vigorous prosecution or defense of the action so that the members' rights are certain to be protected (citations omitted)). In imposing the requirement of adequacy of representation, the class action rule seeks secondly to verify that counsel is adequate to represent the class. See Secretary of Labor v. Fitzsimmons, 805 F.2d 682, 697 (7th Cir.1986) (en banc) (stating that adequacy of representation includes adequacy of attorneys representing class); 7A WRIGHT, MILLER, & KANE, supra, § 1769.1, at 375 (observing that under adequacy requirement court will consider not only character and quality of named representative party but also quality and experience of attorneys for class). Factors in this analysis include the vigor of counsel, experience, and diligence. See Central Wesleyan College v. W.R. Grace & Co., 143 F.R.D. 628, 637 (D.S.C.1992), aff'd, 6 F.3d 177 (4th Cir.1993). See also In Re Northern Dist. of Cal., Dalkon Shield IUD Prods. Liab. Litig., 693 F.2d 847, 855 (9th Cir.1982) (Adequacy of representation depends on the qualifications of counsel for the representatives, an absence of antagonism, a sharing of interests between representatives and absentees, and the unlikelihood that the suit is collusive.); Baby Neal v. Casey, 43 F.3d 48, 55 (3rd Cir. 1994) (explaining that adequacy of representation assures that the attorneys for the class representatives are experienced and qualified to prosecute the claims on behalf of the entire class). This precondition also necessitates that a court focus on conflict of interest concerns, which represent [b]y far the greatest difficulty for the courts in assessing whether attorneys are adequate representatives 7A WRIGHT, MILLER, & KANE, supra, § 1769.1, at 383 (citations omitted). Before this Court, Petitioners do not attack the adequacy of the class representatives. Instead, they claim that class counsel have a conflict of interest and that the Circuit Court erred in finding that class counsel's concurrent representation of the classes in this case and the State of Maryland in a separate lawsuit against Petitioners is not adverse to either party. Because some class members' and the State's interests allegedly collide on the issue of medicaid expense reimbursement, according to Petitioners, class counsel are ethically barred from proceeding any further in the instant litigation and therefore cannot possibly provide adequate representation. We note that the State of Maryland has at this point already entered into a finalized settlement agreement with the tobacco companies, thus rendering Petitioners' objection on this point moot. See Agreed Dismissal Order, State v. Philip Morris Inc., No. 96122201/CL211487 (Baltimore City Cir. Ct. Dec. 1, 1998) (acknowledging existence of Master Settlement Agreement, noting court's entry of Consent Decree and Final Judgment, and ordering all of the [State]'s claims against all defendants ... dismissed with prejudice). In light of this development, in light of the fact that Petitioners have made no other challenge before this Court as to the adequacy of the class representatives or their attorneys, [23] and in light of the reputation and experience of Respondents' counsel, [24] we believe that the Circuit Court did not abuse its discretion in determining that counsel would adequately represent the classes.
We must next determine whether questions of law or fact common to the members of the classes predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. It is only where ... predominance exists that economies can be achieved by means of the class-action device. Federal Rule 23 Committee Note, supra, 39 F.R.D. at 103. This requirement is critical to the notion that the adjudication of common issues will help achieve judicial economy. Valentino v. Carter-Wallace, Inc., 97 F.3d 1227, 1234 (9th Cir.1996). See also 7A WRIGHT, MILLER, & KANE, supra, § 1777, at 518-19 (stating that the predominance test really involves an attempt to achieve a balance between the value of allowing individual actions to be instituted so that each person can protect his own interests and the economy that can be achieved by allowing a multiple party dispute to be resolved on a class action basis (citations omitted)). The predominance test does not require that common issues be dispositive of the action or determinative of the liability issues. See 1 NEWBERG, supra, § 4.25, at 4-82. Instead, courts should inquire into whether proposed classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation. Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 623, 117 S.Ct. 2231, 2249, 138 L.Ed.2d 689 (1997). In order to satisfy the predominance test, common issues must constitute a significant part of the individual cases. Jenkins v. Raymark Industries, 782 F.2d 468, 472 (5th Cir.1986). See also Watson v. Shell Oil Co., 979 F.2d 1014, 1022 (5th Cir.1992), reh'g granted, 990 F.2d 805 (1993), dismissed on reh'g, 53 F.3d 663 (1994); Harding v. Tambrands, Inc., 165 F.R.D. 623, 629 (D.Kan.1996) (noting that the Tenth Circuit focuses on whether the claims involve a common nucleus of operative facts and whether material variations in the claims exist).