Opinion ID: 1213618
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Consideration of the Merits of a Party's Claims

Text: A circuit court's consideration of a motion for class certification should not become a mini-trial on the merits of the parties' contentions. As we stated in Burks v. Wymer, 172 W.Va. 478, 486 307 S.E.2d 647, 654 (1983)( quoting Eisen v. Carlisle and Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 177, 94 S.Ct. 2140, 2152, 40 L.Ed.2d 732, 748 (1974)), [N]othing in either the language or history of Rule 23 ... gives a court any authority to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the merits of a suit in order to determine whether it may be maintained as a class action. Allowing inquiry into the substantive merits of a party's claims or defenses in the context of a class certification motion deprives the party of the right to trial by jury on the claims. See Guarantee Ins. Agency Co. v. Mid-Contintental Realty Corp., 57 F.R.D. 555, 564 (N.D.Ill., 1972). Because Rule 23 requires a circuit court to rule on a class certification motion as soon as practicable, consideration of the merits of the parties' claims would often amount to a court considering summary judgment before the parties have had adequate time for discovery. Moreover, consideration of the merits of a party's claims or defenses is discouraged by the express language of the rule, because Rule 23(c)(1) states that courts should rule upon, alter, or amend any decision about a class certification motion before the decision on the merits. [7] Accordingly, when a circuit court is evaluating a motion for class certification under Rule 23, the dispositive 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. Miller v. Mackey Intern., Inc., 452 F.2d 424, 427 (5th Cir.1971). The circuit court's order in the instant case indicates that the circuit judge did both consider and make determinations regarding the merits of the parties' claims and defenses while considering the motion for class certification. For example, the circuit court concluded that class-wide relief was not possible because at least 95% of the people who took Rezulin `tolerated the drug well without developing any form of liver reaction[.]' The circuit court concluded that the representative plaintiffs were not typical of class members because they appeared to have adverse liver problemsbut then also concluded that the evidence shows that Rezulin was not a defective product for [the plaintiffs]. These factual conclusions were not relevant to the circuit court's consideration of whether the requirements of Rule 23 were met, and as it appears the circuit court substantially turned its decision to deny the plaintiffs' class certification motion on the merits of the plaintiffs' and defendants' evidence, the circuit court thereby abused its discretion. C.