Court Opinion

ID: 7000038
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-24 03:40:25.735664+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:09:52.868687
License: Public Domain

BETTY B. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. In deciding all of the issues against Zinser and in favor of ARI, the majority opinion seriously distorts federal class action law by collapsing the Rule 23(b)(1)(A) certification inquiry into that of Rule 23(b)(2). In the process, the majority opinion virtually ignores the holding of the Ohio district court in a parallel suit against the same defendants, see In re Telectronics Pacing Sys., Inc., 172 F.R.D. 271 (S.D.Ohio 1997), as well as that of the Sixth Circuit, which declined to disturb the relevant certification decisions of the district court.1 The net result, I fear, is that thousands of potential plain*1198tiffs in this case will have no practical means of redress for their injuries.
As I understand it, the Encor 854 leads are essentially the same ones (or at least are alleged to suffer from the same defects, including the J-shaped design flaw) implicated in Telectronics. Zinser cites evidence that ARI’s own studies have found a rising incidence of 854 lead fractures and that it has finally decided to recall the product, even though it initially refused to do so (and permitted continued implantation of the potentially defective leads) at the time it was forced to recall the similar J-leads at issue in Telectronics. Thus, although the number of complainants may have been fairly low at the time of filing, the potential class of plaintiffs may well have grown to be quite sizeable. Cf. Haley v. Medtronic, Inc., 169 F.R.D. 643, 648 (C.D.Cal.1996) (finding in the context of Rule 23(a)(l)’s numerosity requirement that “[gjiven the vast number of people who have had the [Medtronic pacemaker] leads implanted, it is likely that the number of lawsuits that will be filed in the near future is likely to increase substantially”) All in all, I am concerned that outside of a class action, given the relatively small recoveries at stake, individuals implanted with these leads are likely to find it extremely difficult, if not impracticable, to individually litigate the costs of injury and health maintenance.
The majority finds that neither common issues of fact or law predominate under Rule 23(b)(3). This finding squarely conflicts with the reasoning of the Telectronics court, as well as that of the Haley court (which the majority otherwise cites selectively in support of its conclusions). For example, the majority repeatedly contends that a plethora of individual factual questions makes this case unsuitable for class certification. Maj. Op. 1189-90, 1192-93. However, as the district court noted in Telectronics, the sheer number of fractured leads, combined with the fact that the product had been recalled, strongly suggested a single cause of injury. Telectronics, 172 F.R.D. at 289. Similarly, here ARI’s own findings of the increasing incidence of fractures and defects which led it finally to recall the 854 leads strongly suggests to me that, in the language of the Telectronics court, “the most significant common issue which predominates in this action is whether [ARI] is legally responsible for the fractures.” Id.
Likewise, in Haley, the court found that “because ... defendant’s conduct with regard to the design, manufacture and distribution of the leads and defendant’s representations about these leads are at the heart of all plaintiffs’ cases, ... common questions of law and fact do predominate in the instant case.” Haley, 169 F.R.D. at 651 (finding that while common issues predominated, a class action would nonetheless not be a superior method of resolving plaintiffs’ claims, in large part due to the manageability problems associated with applying a multiplicity of state laws).2 In sum, although I believe that Rule 23(b)(3) certification of the negligence and products liability causes of action would be inappropriate at the present time because California’s choice-of-law rules would make the adjudication of these claims unmanageable, *1199I otherwise find that common issues predominate in this action, consistent with the Telectronics court’s conclusion that with appropriate and representative subclasses based on state law commonalities, the Rule 23(b)(3) requirements of predominance and superiority would be satisfied.3
Most importantly, with respect to the proposed medical monitoring subclass, the majority opinion completely ignores the analysis of the district court in Telectronics. In the words of that court, “The medical monitoring claim here is an ideal candidate for class certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(1)(A) because separate adjudications would impair TPLC’s ability to pursue a single uniform monitoring program.” Telectronics, 172 F.R.D. at 284 (emphasis added). I agree. As in the present case, the plaintiffs in Telectronics claimed that the existing medical monitoring program was inadequate. Based on the pleadings here, I see no reason to deny certification under Rule 23(b)(1)(A).
Inexplicably, and utterly without case support, the majority opinion essentially collapses the Rule 23(b)(1)(A) inquiry into that of Rule 23(b)(2). Even if Zinser’s medical monitoring claim essentially seeks damages (an assumption which I find questionable), this should not be dispositive under Rule 23(b)(1)(A). Indeed, inasmuch as Zinser seeks to compel ARI to provide increased research and diagnostic testing for all class members (i.e., beyond just fluoroscopies), the equitable component of the medical monitoring claim is highly significant. Rule 23(b)(1)(A) says nothing about whether the class also seeks damages; it only requires that “(1) the prosecution of separate actions by or against individual members of the class would create a risk of (A) inconsistent or varying adjudications ... which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing the class.” Fed. R. Civ.P. 23(b)(1)(A).4
I particularly find the majority’s assumption that ARI could only be confronted with “slightly different” medical monitoring requirements, Maj. Op. 1195, to be altogether speculative and without support. In so doing, the majority substitutes an unadorned conclusory statement for sound legal reasoning. Tellingly, the majority ignores the plain language of Rule 23(b)(1), which only requires that individual actions prospectively “create a risk of’ inconsistent judicial rulings and incompatible standards of conduct. Instead, the *1200majority seems to suggest that in order to merit certification under Rule 23(b)(1)(A), plaintiffs bear the burden of actually demonstrating that a defendant “by reason of the legal relations involved can not as a practical matter pursue two different courses of conduct” — a near-insurmountable task in most cases. Maj. Op. at 1195 n. 11 (citation omitted). In sum, I cannot agree with the majority’s minimization of the risk of inconsistent judicial rulings in this case, especially as the cohort of potential plaintiffs continues to grow.
Significantly, both Ninth Circuit cases cited as precedent for the majority holding — Green v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 541 F.2d 1335, 1340 (9th Cir.1976), and McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 523 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir.1975)— involved plaintiffs who sought only damages; accordingly, Rule 23(b)(1)(A) certification was appropriately denied in those cases.5 Here, by contrast, the majority opinion denies Rule 23(b)(1)(A) certification on the dubious ground that Zinser primarily seeks damages. Even if true, this constitutes an unwarranted and unsupported extension of our prior cases, and effectively collapses the Rule 23(b)(1)(A) inquiry into that of Rule 23(b)(2).
To be sure, there are some minor factual differences between the medical monitoring class certified in Telectronics and that proposed here, such as the requirement that the defendants pay the cost of notifying all class members; create a fund to pay for the cost of monitoring the health of class members; and pay all medical expenses related to defective leads. But for all practical (and legal) purposes, these differences are insignificant under the Rule 23(b)(1)(A) framework; indeed, if anything, the requested medical monitoring “fund” simply makes explicit whatever financial responsibility was inherent in the Telectronics medical monitoring proposal. Thus, I cannot see how the proposed medical monitoring subclass here “is in essence a request for monetary relief.” Maj. Op. 1194. Furthermore, even if it is, this should only be grounds for denying certification under Rule 23(b)(2), not Rule 23(b)(1)(A).
Finally, I believe the medical monitoring subclass also merits certification under Rule 23(b)(3). With respect to the predominance requirement, ARI’s primary defense to Zinser’s claim is that the current monitoring program is sufficient. As the Telectronics court reasoned, “[tjhis defense is common to all implantees and is the predominant issue regarding the appropriateness of a court ordered medical monitoring program.” Id. at 286 (citations omitted). Moreover, “practically speaking, for many of the ‘J’ Lead recipients their only realistic claim may be for medical monitoring.... The superiority prong of Rule 23(b)(3) is satisfied if aggregation of small monetary claims is required to ensure vindication of legal rights.” Id. at 286-87 (citations omitted). Any manageability problems due to variations in state law can be readily addressed, as in Telec-*1201ironies, by the creation of two subclasses — one for states that require present physical injury to recover for medical monitoring, and one for states that do not— pursuant to the court’s authority under Rule 23(c)(4). Once this distinction is addressed, other “variations in state law regarding medical monitoring are immaterial.” Id. at 287.
In sum, because I find that the majority opinion completely neglects the persuasive reasoning of the Telectronics court and eviscerates the distinction between Rule 23(b)(1)(A) and Rule 23(b)(2), I respectfully dissent.

. In In re Telectronics Pacing Sys., Inc., 221 F.3d 870 (6th Cir.2000), the Sixth Circuit recently vacated a proposed settlement on the ground that the limited fund rationale of Rule 23(b)(2)(B) does not apply when the available funds are limited only by agreement of the parties. All other issues, including the district court's certification decisions, were pre-termitted. Id. at 882.

. The majority opinion's analysis of the superiority prong of Rule 23(b)(3) also conflicts with Haley. In Haley, the court found that under Rule 23(b)(3)(A), "where the damages each plaintiff suffered are not that great, this factor weighs in favor of certifying a class action." Id. at 652. Furthermore, the court also found that the second criterion for determining superiority under Rule 23(b)(3)(B), the nature and extent of concurrent litigation, "slightly weighted] in favor of granting class certification.” Instead, it was "in particular” because of the manageability problems under Rule 23(b)(3)(D) that the Haley court deemed class certification to be inappropriate. Id. at 653.

. Notwithstanding my conclusion that the choice-of-law problem renders Rule 23(b)(3) certification inappropriate at the present time, the majority somehow contends that based on our divergence on other issues of predominance and superiority, I "would have us hold that if Zinser were to propose proper representative subclasses based on state law commonalities at some future point in time, Rule 23(b)(3) would be satisfied.” Maj. Op. 1192-93 n. 8. To the contrary, such a holding would be tantamount to inserting the court into the role of plaintiff's counsel. Rather, I take issue with the further (and, I believe, unwarranted) conclusion in the majority opinion that, in addition to the choice-of-law problem, other individual issues of fact and law overwhelm common issues in this case. These findings unnecessarily conflict with Te-lectronics and Haley, and preclude the possibility that if Zinser did propose subclasses and appropriate representatives along the lines of what was done in Telectronics, the class would merit certification.

. Like the majority, the district court below denied Rule 23(b)(1)(A) .certification of the medical monitoring subclass because it determined that Zinser "seeks mostly damages." Although the majority makes much of the fact that our review of the district court's denial of class certification is for abuse of discretion, the district court’s reliance upon an erroneous construction of Rule 23(b)(1)(A) constitutes a per se abuse of discretion. See Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 100, 116 S.Ct. 2035, 135 L.Ed.2d 392 (1996) ("A district court by definition abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law.”)

. The majority opinion also quotes selectively from O’Connor v. Boeing North American, Inc., 180 F.R.D. 359 (C.D.Cal.1997), while ignoring the discussion at footnote 22 of that opinion regarding the Telectronics decision. The O'Connor court correctly noted that because the defendant in Telectronics had already established a medical monitoring program for diagnostic testing and research, any judicially-imposed modification of the program would affect all class members. Furthermore, the class sought to establish a medical monitoring claim under Rule 23(b)(1)(A), rather than seek medical monitoring as a form of relief for some other claim. "Thus, if the class prevailed on their claim, the defendant would necessarily be required to treat all class members alike, as all class members would then be eligible for the medical monitoring program by virtue of winning their medical monitoring claim.” Id. at 377 n. 22.