Opinion ID: 891570
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: class action context

Text: {3} We granted this interlocutory appeal to review the district court's certification orders under Rule 1-023(B)(2) and (B)(3). [1] These rules provide, in pertinent part: B. Class actions maintainable. An action may be maintained as a class action if the prerequisites of Paragraph A of this rule are satisfied, and in addition: . . . (2) the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole; or (3) the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. Our class action certification rules mirror the federal rules. See Ferrell v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2008-NMSC-042, ¶ 7, 144 N.M. 405, 188 P.3d 1156 (noting that we may seek guidance from federal law applying the rule). As the rule's text makes clear, one significant difference between (B)(2) and (B)(3) actions is that (B)(2) classes, unlike those certified under (B)(3), have no requirement that the common questions predominate over individual questions, or that the class action be superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. 2 Alba Conte & Herbert B. Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions § 4:11, at 62 (4th ed.2002). Instead, (B)(2) certification requires only that the defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, Rule 1-023(B)(2), such that final relief of an injunctive nature or of a corresponding declaratory nature[] settl[es] the legality of the behavior with respect to the class as a whole[.] Fed. R.Civ.P. 23 advisory committee note to subdivision (b)(2). The predominancy and superiority requirements are applicable only for Rule 23(b)(3) class actions. Conte & Newberg, supra § 4:11 at 62. {4} For the purpose of our review, we accept as true all well-pled factual allegations from Plaintiffs' complaints. See Armijo v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2007-NMCA-120, ¶ 23, 142 N.M. 557, 168 P.3d 129 (at the certification stage, the court accept[s] Plaintiffs' factual allegations about the merits as true and decline[s] to examine evidence proffered by Defendants that dispute[s] such allegations). Class certification is not the appropriate time to decide the merits of the case, Ferrell, 2008-NMSC-042, ¶ 2 n. 1, because `[i]n determining the propriety of a class action, the question is not whether the plaintiff or plaintiffs have stated a cause of action or will prevail on the merits, but rather whether the requirements of Rule 23 are met.' Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 178, 94 S.Ct. 2140, 40 L.Ed.2d 732 (1974) (quoting Miller v. Mackey Int'l, 452 F.2d 424, 427 (5th Cir.1971)); see also Ferrell, 2008-NMSC-042, ¶ 7 (noting that our current class action rule mirrors the federal rule upon which it is based. Thus, we may seek guidance from federal law applying the rule. (citations omitted)). These principles do not mean that the courts should blindly accept any conclusory allegations which parrot Rule [1-0]23 [NMRA] requirements. Armijo, 2007-NMCA-120, ¶ 23 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Rather, the court should engage in a rigorous analysis to determine whether Plaintiffs satisfied the requirements of Rule 1-023. Id.