Opinion ID: 2630976
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the trial court abused its discretion in certifying the class.

Text: ¶ 8 Title 12 O.S.2001 § 2023 requires that four prerequisites for class certification under § 2023(A) and one of the three additional requirements contained in § 2023(B) must be met in order to certify a class. [8] Subsections 1 through 4 of § 2023(A), respectively, require: 1) numerosity of class members; 2) commonality of questions of law or fact; 3) typicality of claims or defenses of the class representatives with the class; and 4) adequacy of representative parties to protect class interests. Subsection 1 through 3 of § 2023(B) requires either: 1) a risk of inconsistent adjudications by separate actions or substantial impairment of non-parties to protect their interests; 2) appropriateness of final injunctive or declaratory relief; or 3) predominance of common questions of law or fact to class members and superiority of class action adjudication. ¶ 9 A trial court's class certification order is reviewed for abuse of discretion. [9] An abuse of discretion occurs when a court bases its decision on an erroneous conclusion of law or where there is no rational basis in evidence for the ruling. [10] If the record does not demonstrate that the requisites for class action have been met, the trial court has abused it's discretion. [11] ¶ 10 The party who seeks certification has the burden of proving each of the requisite elements for class action. [12] We take as true all uncontroverted allegations in the instruments in the record and the undenied statements of counsel in the briefs. [13] A trial court is allowed flexibility and discretion to modify, or even set aside, its order of certification if later developments demonstrate a need to do so. [14] Consequently, in the face of a close question as to certification, the Court has held that the pragmatic action is to sustain certification. [15] ¶ 11 To resolve whether the prerequisites for class-certification are met, we need not reach the merits of the claim. [16] Nevertheless, determining whether the trial court applied the correct legal standards when it assessed § 2023's requirements for class certification necessitates identification and review of the core liability issues asserted by the class. [17] ¶ 12 The customer argues that because she proved that the four elements required pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2023 (A) [numerosity, commonality, typicality, and representation] and that two of the three standards of § 2023(B) [the appropriateness of injunctive or declaratory relief or predominance of common questions of law or fact and the superiority of class action adjudication] were met, the trial court's certification order must be affirmed. The primary focus of Goodyear's challenge to the trial court's certification is that certification must fail because Harvell did not satisfy the requirements of either appropriateness of injunctive or declaratory relief or predominance of common questions of law or fact over questions affecting only individual members. Goodyear also argues that Ohio law is inapplicable to the claims. We agree with Goodyear's challenges. ¶ 13 A factor weighing heavily in this case is the geographic dispersion of the class members and the consequent, potential applicability of the law of multiple jurisdictions. This factor is important because we have previously held that where the substantive law of multiple jurisdictions may apply, common issues of law or fact generally do not predominate as required by 12 O.S.2001 § 2023 (B)(3) [18] and class certification should be defeated. [19]