Opinion ID: 2788912
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether an Individual Adjudication Would be Dispositive of Others’ Claims or Interests

Text: [¶34] The next fair and efficient adjudication sub-factor to consider is whether the resolution of one person’s lawsuit likely would be dispositive of the interests of others, or whether it would substantially impair other parties’ ability to protect their interests. N.D.R.Civ.P. 23 (c)(1)(c). “The precedential effect of a decision in individualized litigation ‘alone should not be the basis for class certification under’ N.D.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(1)(c), ‘but precedent plus some other practical factor could be sufficient to qualify as a class under this factor.’” Bice , 2004 ND 113, ¶ 16, 681 N.W.2d 74 (citation and quotation omitted). This Court has stated: Although most class certification issues under this factor deal with cases involving limited funds, the plain language of the rule does not restrict it to those cases. Koch I , [ Ritter, Laber and Assoc. v. Koch Oil , 2000 ND 15, ¶ 18, 605 N.W.2d 153]. The trial court did not base its finding under this factor on [the defendant’s] lack of funds, but instead found individual actions could have a preclusive effect on recovering or defending claims. We noted in Koch I , the majority of courts have required that the effect of separate actions must be more than stare decisis. See id. ; see also 5 Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.42[3][b] (noting the stare decisis effect is insufficient to warrant class certification under this factor). The intent of Rule 23 is not to create a right to a class action simply because an opinion in one action might be cited as precedent in another action. Herbert B. Newberg & Alba Conte, Newberg on Class Actions § 4.10 (3d ed. 1992) (citing Goldman Theaters, Inc. v. Paramount Film Corp. , 49 F.R.D. 35 (E.D.Pa. 1969)). If this were considered the rule, then almost every action would be susceptible of being brought as a class action. Klagues , 2002 ND 59, ¶ 17, 643 N.W.2d 45. [¶35] Plaintiff argued to the district court and on appeal that class treatment would provide a simple and streamlined means of determining the legal questions, leaving only calculations of damages. That argument is relevant to determining whether common questions predominate, but it is not the correct analysis under sub-factor (C). Further, we have not been pointed to anything in the record suggesting this is a limited funds case or that individual adjudications risk anything other than the potential for differing adjudicatory results. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion by finding that there is no risk individual adjudications would dispose of others’ claims, and that this sub-factor does not favor certification.