Opinion ID: 2586005
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: `Trial [courts] are afforded substantial discretion in determining whether a class should be certified.' [Citation omitted.] . . . `?'[T]he amount and degree of judicial discretion will vary depending on the character of the question presented for determination.' [Citation omitted.] In general, when a discretionary decision is made `within the legal standards and takes the proper factors into account in the proper way, the . . . decision is protected even if not wise.' [Citation omitted.] However, `[a]buse is found when the trial court has gone outside the framework of legal standards or statutory limitations, or when it fails to properly consider the factors on that issue given by the higher courts to guide the discretionary determination.' [Citations omitted.] . . . . While the trial court has substantial discretion in determining whether a class should be certified, the provisions of K.S.A. 2003 Supp. 60-223 must be applied and rigorously analyzed. Dragon I, 277 Kan. at 779-80, 89 P.3d 908. Application of our Standard of Review In Dragon I, we set forth the following prerequisites for class certification: K.S.A.2003 Supp. 60-223(a), like its federal counterpart, imposes four requirements applicable to all class actions: `(a) Prerequisites to a class action. One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all only if (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.' K.S.A.2003 Supp. 60-223(a). In abbreviated form, these threshold elements require: (1) numerosity, (2) commonality, (3) typicality, and (4) adequacy of representation. In addition to satisfying these four prerequisites, parties seeking class certification must show that the action is maintainable under K.S.A.2003 Supp. 60-223(b)(1), (2), or (3). Plaintiffs in this case seek certification under K.S.A.2003 Supp. 60-223(b)(3). This provision adds two additional prerequisites: common questions of law or fact must `predominate over any questions affecting only individual members' and class resolution must be `superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.' 277 Kan. at 778, 89 P.3d 908. K.S.A.2003 Supp. 60-223(b)(3) includes a list of factors pertinent to a court's examination of the predominance and superiority requirements: (A) The interest of members of the class in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions; (B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already commenced by or against members of the class; (C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular forum; (D) the difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of a class action. Contentions of the Parties The plaintiffs argue the trial court abused its discretion by failing to rigorously analyze the relevant factors under K.S.A.2003 Supp. 60-223, by failing to consider the choice of law issue, and by considering unasserted claims and nonclass members in denying class certification. They urge this court to analyze all of the K.S.A.2003 Supp. 60-223 factors, including the choice of law issue, which the trial court did not consider below, and grant class certification. The defendants respond that the plaintiffs' failure to challenge the inadequacy of the findings of facts and conclusions of law below precludes them from raising the issue on appeal and that the memorandum decision permits meaningful appellate review. They contend the decision was correct because the plaintiffs lacked the power to decisively waive reliance on the dropped legal claims in the second amended petition, the waiver raises serious questions about the due process for and the fairness and adequacy of the representation being afforded to the members of the proposed class, the purported elimination of legal theories was not shown to benefit prospective class members, the elimination of legal theories failed to simplify choice of law problems, and the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the black letter requirements of K.S.A.2003 Supp. 60-223.