Opinion ID: 200373
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Ch. 93A Class

Text: 42 The decertification of the ch. 93A class is similarly flawed: it also rests on the premise that individual inquiries would be required because services were received for the charges on incoming calls. 43 As plaintiffs' brief says, the Ch. 93A claim is not an oral misrepresentation claim, but [is] based on the same standard form contract which was signed by all class members. See generally Anthony's Pier Four, Inc. v. HBC Assoc., 411 Mass. 451, 583 N.E.2d 806, 821 (1991) ([C]onduct in disregard of known contractual arrangements and intended to secure benefits for the breaching party constitutes an unfair act or practice for ch. 93A purposes.). Cellular One points to law to the effect that a mere breach of contract is not a ch. 93A violation. See Whitinsville Plaza, Inc. v. Kotseas, 378 Mass. 85, 390 N.E.2d 243, 251 (1979). That defense, though, argues for, not against, the commonality of liability issues. Plaintiffs disclaim any intent to rely on oral misrepresentations, and must adhere to that position or risk losing class status. 10 44 Our prior discussion is adequate to dispose of any argument that decertification would be required because of a need for individual damages determinations. Since Smilow can compute actual damages using a computer program, we need not address plaintiffs' argument that common issues would predominate only on a claim for statutory damages, and not on a claim for individual damages. 11 As to statutory damages, the Supreme Judicial Court has held that plaintiffs who cannot show actual damages under ch. 93A may nonetheless obtain statutory damages if liability is established. Leardi v. Brown, 394 Mass. 151, 474 N.E.2d 1094, 1101-02 (1985) (awarding statutory damages under ch. 93A § 9(3)). This too supports class certification. 45 We are left with the district court's concern that any ch. 93A class would be composed of two groups: a statutory damages group and an actual damages group. But plaintiffs' position is that should any conflict develop between the two groups, the action would seek only statutory damages, class members would be given notice to that effect, and those who wish to pursue individual claims for actual damages could opt-out. We agree this is an option and, in this context, the hypothetical conflict provides no basis for decertification. 46