Opinion ID: 894521
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: Because this is an interlocutory appeal from an order certifying a class action and there was no dissent in the court of appeals, this Court has jurisdiction only when the court of appeals holds differently from a prior decision of another court of appeals or of the supreme court. TEX. GOVT CODE §§ 22.225(b)(3), (c), 22.001(a)(2). [4] Compaq argues that the court of appeals' failure to analyze predominance and superiority conflicts with Southwestern Refining Co. v. Bernal, 22 S.W.3d 425 (Tex.2000). We agree. In Bernal, we held that [c]ourts must perform a `rigorous analysis' before ruling on class certification to determine whether all prerequisites to certification have been met. Id. at 435 (emphasis added). Rule 42(b)(3) requires that the trial court find that questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. TEX.R. CIV. P. 42(b)(3) (emphasis added). Predominance and superiority analyses are vital to a determination of whether to certify a (b)(3) class. Indeed, predominance is one of the most stringent prerequisites to class certification. Bernal, 22 S.W.3d at 433. The court of appeals stated that the trial court certified the class under Rule 42(b)(2), and only alternatively certified the class under Rule 42(b)[ (3) ], and having found the trial court did not abuse its discretion in certifying a (b)(3) [sic] class, it is unnecessary to address issues five and six challenging the requirements of predominance and superiority. [5] 79 S.W.3d at 791. Thus, the court of appeals addressed only the (b)(2) issues but then affirmed the trial court's order (which certified both (b)(2) and (b)(3) classes) in its entirety. Id. at 794. The effect of the court of appeals' decision is to affirm the (b)(3) class without reviewing predominance and superiority. The class would be entitled to seek damages under the (b)(3) certificationas affirmed by the court of appeals without any court ever having rigorously analyzed predominance and superiority. This directly conflicts with Bernal a conflict that is apparent from the face of the court of appeals' opinionand would operate to overrule it had the opinion issued from our court. See Coastal Corp. v. Garza, 979 S.W.2d 318, 319-20 (Tex.1998); Hill v. Miller, 714 S.W.2d 313, 315 (Tex. 1986). Accordingly, we have jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal.