Court Opinion

ID: 9514997
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:53:03.692369+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:23.685639
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(concurring in result).
[¶ 20.] I join that part of Justice Amundson’s writing which reverses and remands the certification of the class action in full. Therefore, I would reverse the certification of the class action in full and limit it to identifiable persons and amounts.6
[¶ 21.] The claim procedure established by the City appears to be the best and fairest as to non-identifiable persons and amounts, and those who prefer to opt out of the limited class action provided for above.
[¶ 22.] The limited class action and the City procedure combined will be the most effective and economical method and provide an option to those who wish to obtain refunds and avoid expenses for attorneys. The two methods combined should guarantee the most refunds at less cost and expense to all concerned. See, e.g., Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U.S. 815, 119 S.Ct. 2295, 144 L.Ed.2d 715 (1999) (holding that a limited fund set aside by the defendants for payment of injured persons, in combination with a limited class action suit, was the appropriate remedy for plaintiffs). See also Smith v. United Healthcare Svcs., Inc., 2002 WL 192565 (D.Minn.2002) (holding that “the relatively small amounts at stake for each member render the class action a superior method for fair and efficient adjudication of this dispute”); Zeigler v. Gibralter Life Ins. Co. of Am., 43 F.R.D. 169, 173 (D.S.D.1967) (stating that class action is the preferred method when it is “superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy”) (citation omitted); Trapp, 390 N.W.2d at 561 (same).

. The record reflects that many persons and amounts are identifiable through the business records of the retailers at the Airport.