Opinion ID: 2630976
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Appropriateness of Final Injunctive or Declaratory Relief.

Text: ¶ 25 In addition to finding predominance, the trial court determined that the class should be certified under 12 O.S. § 2023 (B)(2). Section (B)(2) allows certification when the class representative can show that the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole. [44] Under this section, the customer argues that injunctive or declaratory relief is an appropriate basis for certifying the class. Goodyear insists that because all of the asserted claims seek predominately monetary damages, subsection (B)(2) is inapplicable. ¶ 26 We have not previously addressed a class certification under § 2023(B)(2). However, Oklahoma's class action scheme closely parallels Rule 23, of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and we find it illustrative. [45] Under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [46] the injunctive or declaratory relief must be the primary remedy requested for class members, [47] and the defendant's behavior must be generally applicable to the class as a whole. [48] The award of some monetary damages is not precluded by the requirement, provided that monetary relief is secondary or incidental to the primary injunctive or declaratory relief sought. [49] ¶ 27 To determine certification under subsection (2), the court considers not merely the relief sought by the plaintiffs, but whether the crux of the action is for monetary damages. [50] Certification is improper if the merits of the claim turn on the defendant's individual dealings with each plaintiff. [51] Certification is generally reserved for cases in which broad, class-wide injunctive or declaratory relief is necessary to address a group-wide injury such as in discrimination or civil rights suits, even though some damages may also be awarded. [52] ¶ 28 The present action is not similar to those types of actions. Even though Harvell also seeks an injunction against the continued practice of charging the fees, the crux of her class action is compensation sought for the allegedly fraudulently charged shop supply fees. [53] This case focuses squarely on a claim for compensatory money damages. A determination of the damages would require individualized determinations for each class member of the fees charged compared with the services rendered, to determine whether the fees did in fact correlate to the supplies used. Accordingly, certification pursuant to § 2023(B)(2) is also an abuse of discretion.