Court Opinion

ID: 9741074
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:49:06.804779+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:22.131785
License: Public Domain

Coleman, J.
(dissent). The Court of Appeals *520opinion Nortkview Construction Co v St Clair Shores, 44 Mich App 614; 205 NW2d 895 (1973) correctly phrased the issue in this case:
"Where the named plaintiffs in a class action pursuant to GCR 1963, 208.1(3) secure judgment in their favor alone, prior to the intervention of any other member of the class, did the trial court err in dismissing the class action?”
Like that Court, I conclude the answer is "no”.
As noted by the Court of Appeals, the named plaintiffs were granted summary judgment on their claims alone. Further, "[t]hese judgments were satisfied, but without any order continuing the litigation as a class action”.
After the named plaintiffs in the class action were "gone from the scene”, the trial court ordered notice by publication. Plaintiffs challenge the type of notice ordered. However, it is not necessary to rule on the form of notice because prior to the first appeal "the trial court could have determined that there was not adequate representation from the mere fact that the named plaintiffs had departed from the suit prior to the appearance of any other member of the class, and thus obviating the necessity of notice to the other members of the class * * * ".1
*521The per curiam opinion terms the Court of Appeals holding "a priori reasonable”. However, it says the holding is overbroad under Federal case law. My reading of the Federal cases does not support the opinion that the withdrawn named plaintiffs may adequately represent a class in this case.
The cases cited by the per curiam opinion, and many others not cited, do stand for the proposition that a plaintiff whose individual claim has been rendered moot may continue to represent a class. However, these cases involve the unique situation of a constitutional challenge to a state or Federal statute, or an alleged misapplication of a statute.
In Thomas v Clarke, 54 FRD 245 (D Minn, 1971), cited by the per curiam opinion, the named plaintiff started a class action in Federal court challenging the constitutionality of a state claim and delivery statute. The statutory action against the plaintiff was settled in state court. Defendant argued that plaintiffs Federal case was rendered moot. The court rejected the claim of mootness with little discussion, citing several supporting cases. The plaintiff was allowed to continue as a proper representative of the class action.
In Frost v Weinberger, 375 F Supp 1312 (ED NY, 1974), reversed on other grounds, 515 F2d 57 (CA 2, 1975),2 also cited by the per curiam opinion, the plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of actions which decreased social security survivors’ benefits without a prior hearing. The plaintiff was given a hearing subsequent to starting the class *522action. The Court held that "mootness of an individual plaintiff’s claim will not necessarily render the class action moot”. The Court said "the touchstone for determining mootness is the likelihood that the behavior complained of will not recur”. The class action was not.moot because the Social Security Administration continued to use procedures that did not provide for a prereduction hearing. The Court commented on the rationale underlying the mootness rule in such class actions:
"If the rule were otherwise, a defendant might easily circumvent the judicial resolution of an important constitutional issue simply by settling the individual case of the representative plaintiff. Fortunately, the courts will not permit a defendant to use the doctrine of mootness as a vehicle to evade the resolution of key constitutional questions.”
To the same effect, and cited by the per curiam opinion, see Huff v N D Cass Co of Alabama, 485 F2d 710 (CA 5, 1973) (class action civil rights suit); Stokes v Bonin, 366 F Supp 485 (ED La, 1973) (challenge to food stamp benefit reduction without hearing); Wymelenberg v Syman, 54 FRD 198 (ED Wis, 1972) (constitutional challenge of state residency requirement for divorce).
Other cases, cited in those cases relied upon by the per curiam opinion, carry the same message. See Steinberg v Fusari, 364 F Supp 922 (D Conn, 1973), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 419 US 379; 95 S Ct 533; 42 L Ed 2d 521 (1975) (constitutional challenge of state unemployment compensation termination procedures where named plaintiffs did have hearings, but class action continued because the unconstitutional procedure could recur); Torres v New York State De*523partment of Labor, 318 F Supp 1313 (SD NY, 1970) (where the court stressed the "danger that the defendants could always grant the named plaintiff a hearing and then claim that the matter is moot or the plaintiff not representative in an effort to evade a judicial determination of the underlying constitutional issues”); Kelly v Wyman, 294 F Supp 893 (SD NY, 1968), affirmed sub nom Goldberg v Kelly, 397 US 254; 90 S Ct 1011; 25 L Ed 2d 287 (1970) (constitutional challenge of welfare benefits termination without prior hearing where named plaintiffs could continue class action because of the important constitutional question); Davis v Caldwell, 53 FRD 373 (ND Ga, 1971) (constitutional challenge of workmen’s compensation benefits termination without prior hearing with same result as Torres, supra, and Kelly, supra); Gatling v Butler, 52 FRD 389 (D Conn, 1971); Knowles v Butz, 358 F Supp 228 (ND Cal, 1973) (class action continued although named plaintiff’s claim was moot because the alleged misinterpretation of a statute could recur); Crow v California Department of Human Resources, 325 F Supp 1314 (ND Cal, 1970), reversed on other grounds, 490 F2d 580 (CA 9, 1973) certiorari denied, 408 US 924; 92 S Ct 2495; 33 L Ed 335 (1972) (possible recurrence allowed to continue class action); Vaughan v Bower, 313 F Supp 37 (D Ariz, 1970) affirmed, 400 US 884; 91. S Ct 139; 27 L Ed 2d 129 (1970) (class action continued although named plaintiff’s claim was moot because the problem could recur and "Defendant cannot, by his own voluntary conduct * * * deprive the Court of jurisdiction”); Gaddis v Wyman, 304 F Supp 717 (SD NY, 1969), affirmed sub nom Wyman v Bowens, 397 US 49; 90 S Ct 813; 25 L Ed 2d 38 (1970) (class action continued because of recurrence); Jenkins v United Gas Corp, 400 F2d 28 (CA 5,1968).3
*524But see Watkins v Chicago Housing Authority, 406 F2d 1234 (CA 7, 1969).
The cases relied upon by the per curiam opinion only stand for the proposition that a class action may continue where the named plaintiff’s claim is moot and where a statute or procedure is challenged on grounds of constitutionality or misapplication. If a moot claim is continued as a class action, two reasons usually are present: (1) possible recurrence of the alleged illegality, and (2) prevention of defendant from stopping a class action and continuing unconstitutional or illegal practices by rendering the named plaintiff’s claim moot.
The instant case does not fall within either of the reasons for applying the rule in question. Recurrence of the illegality presents no problem. Defendant has not attempted to continue an unconstitutional or illegal practice by rendering the named plaintiff’s claim moot through settlement. We are not faced with the picture of a defendant able to stay out of court perpetually and to circumvent judicial resolution of important issues by settling the individual case of the representative plaintiff.
Moreover, the character of the instant case is far different from that of the Federal cases. The instant case is not concerned with an important constitutional question as are most of the Federal cases. Collection of money is the focus here, not an allegedly unconstitutional practice.
In the factual situation presented by the instant case, it is especially important that any class action have proper representatives. As the Court of Appeals noted, there are special circumstances present which tend to indicate that potential class *525members may desire not to continue the suit. Proper representatives should be required — not the withdrawn named plaintiffs who are presumably happy with their satisfied judgments.
After fifteen years, this litigation should be given a prompt burial.
I would affirm the Court of Appeals.

 "[T]he members of the class who did respond to the notice only serve to buttress the trial court’s determination that there was not adequate representation to justify the continuation of the class action. Not only was the response to the notice small, but those who responded to the notice clearly indicated that they were interested only in their own claims and were not interested in continuing the class action.” Northview, supra, at 621.
The Court of Appeals also noted that "The lack of enthusiasm on the part of the other contractors to join in this class action may well be explained by the fact that there was an attempt on the part of the owners of the homes built during the period in question to intervene, asserting that they were the true parties in interest. The contractors may well have determined that they had been able to pass their *521increased cost on to the ultimate consumer, the home buyer. Clearly, the builders would gain nothing if they, in turn, faced suits by the buyers for the moneys recovered in this class-action suit.” Northview, supra, at 621, fn 8.

 Judge Friendly agreed with the district court on the mootness issue, although reversing on the substantive issue.

 See also, Gerstein vPugh, 420 US 103, 110, fn 11; 95 S Ct 854; 43 L *524Ed 2d 54 (1975) and Sosna v Iowa, 419 US 393; 95 S Ct 553; 42 L Ed 2d 532 (1975).