Opinion ID: 2788912
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Whether a Class Action Offers the Most Appropriate Means of Adjudicating the Claims and Defenses

Text: [¶47] This sub-factor looks at both claims and defenses to determine whether a representative class proceeding provides the most appropriate means of adjudication. N.D.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(1)(G). The district court found sub-factor (G) did not favor certification because the court must look at both the claims and the defenses. The district court earlier acknowledged that Baker presented a common legal claim but that any determination of facts would be particularly individualized. Under this sub- factor, the district court explained it could not issue a blanket finding that the defendants violated the usury law in all 500 contracts “either because the fluctuating formula required for determining usury removes a contract from the ambit of the usury law, or the defendants properly disclosed everything required by the retail installment sales act.” [¶48] The Newberg treatise notes that comparing class actions to alternate forms of litigation “is not a comparison that requires significant effort in most class action cases, namely those involving small claims.” 2 Rubenstein, supra , § 4:87 (5th ed.). The treatise goes on to note: In such cases, there will either be a class action or there will be no litigation. A class action is not only superior to other forms of litigation; it is the only form of litigation. Id. [¶49] Defendants and appellees argue that sub-factor (G) requires a consideration of whether a class action offers the most appropriate means of adjudicating the claims, as well as the defenses. They argue that while a class action “would undoubtedly provide a convenient method for Baker to prosecute a class action claim, it would also eviscerate the ability of the defendants to fairly defend themselves in court,” and they “must be given the opportunity to compel each claimant to prove that they are actually entitled to relief.” [¶50] In Salvagne , a similar case, a class was certified for a group of car buyers that challenged a Ford dealer’s financing procedures and retail installment sales contracts. 264 F.R.D. at 327. Ford argued a class action was not the most efficient method for adjudicating the issues because it would have to devote considerable time to investigate each individual deal, agreement, and customer interaction. Id. at 330. The court found Ford’s position contradictory: Ford argues that differences in forms and customer understanding should defeat Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification but in the same breath assures the Court that it would receive closure on the issues raised by Plaintiffs if the Court ruled on an individual claim. The Court fails to see how those two positions can be reconciled with each other. Id. [¶51] We conclude the district court misanalyzed sub-factor (G).