Court Opinion

ID: 9770725
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:19:56.942005+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:20.083150
License: Public Domain

HEDGES, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I believe that the trial court’s definition of the class is improper because it requires an inappropriate determination of the merits of the cause of action itself. A trial court cannot consider the merits of a plaintiff’s claims at certification. Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 177-78, 94 S.Ct. 2140, 2152-53, 40 L.Ed.2d 732 (1974). A definition of a class based on a legal conclusion dictates that “the court would have to pass on the merits of the claim at the class certification stage in order to tell who was included in the class.” Hagen v. City of Winnemucca, 108 F.R.D. 61, 63 (D.Nev.1985).
The trial court approved the following definition of the class: “All persons who were producers of natural gas sold to [Intratex] between January 1, 1978 and December 31, 1988 whose gas was taken by [Intratex] in quantities less than their ratable proportions.” This definition requires a finding of wrongdoing in order to constitute the class.
Under this definition, once the plaintiffs determine the members of the class, they have already identified those who have been harmed and have excluded all others. I believe that the concept of ratability, as used by the plaintiffs, subsumes the notion of dis*400crimination, such that the unlawful conduct is predetermined.
Rule 34 of the Statewide Conservation Rules of the Texas Railroad Commission (known as the Market Demand Rule) states: “A first purchaser shall not discriminate between different wells from which it purchases in the same field, nor shall it discriminate unjustly or unreasonably between separate fields.” This rule equates discrimination with failure to take ratably. Under the trial court’s class definition, becoming a class member means that liability is automatically established.
I have found no cases in which a definition of a class was approved when this particular issue was in question. I have found three cases in which definitions have been rejected because they required a determination on the merits in order to establish class membership.
In Forman v. Data Transfer, Inc., 164 F.R.D. 400 (E.D.Pa.1995), a plaintiff sued for money damages and sought to enjoin Data Transfer from sending any farther unsolicited advertisements by way of fax machine in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. He petitioned to certify a class consisting of “all residents and businesses who have received unsolicited facsimile advertisements since January 1, 1992 from Data Transfer, Inc.” Id. at 402. The court rejected the class definition on the basis that identifying those who received unsolicited facsimile advertisements “requires addressing the central issue of liability to be decided in the case. Determining a membership in the class would essentially require a mini-hearing on the merits of each case.” Id. at 403.
In Hagen v. City of Winnemucca, the plaintiff sought certification of a class consisting of all persons whose constitutional rights had been violated by the defendant city’s policies regarding prostitution during the previous four years. The court rejected the definition as insufficient because “it would require the court to determine whether a person’s constitutional rights had actually been violated in order to determine that person was a class member.” Id. at 63. The court validated “a much more precise and acceptable definition” that-would avoid inquiry into the merits of the claim: “[a]ll persons who held police department work permits as prostitutes in the City of Winnemucca from May 18, 1981 to May 18, 1984.” Id. at 64.
In Metcalf v. Edelman, 64 F.R.D. 407 (N.D.Ill.1974), the plaintiffs were public aid recipients who alleged that they could not obtain adequate housing under the existing state welfare system. The court rejected all attempts to certify a class, citing the futility of properly defining membership with the following unacceptable examples:
(1) those public aid recipients who are unable to obtain housing compatible with health and well-being with the allowance provided by defendant;
(2) those who, because of the size of their families and where they live, cannot obtain required housing with the portion of the Consolidated Standard Plan calculated to meet shelter costs;
(3) those who did not obtain shelter exceptions they should have had prior to the inception of the Consolidated Standard Plan, and also those for whom the Consolidated Standard Plan shelter component is inadequate; and
(4) those who should have had rent exceptions subsequent to the inauguration of the Consolidated Standard Plan.
Id. at 409.
The court criticized these definitions on the following basis:
Each definition proffered by plaintiffs calls for a conclusion, e.g., who were the recipients who could not obtain housing compatible with health and well-being, who should have had shelter exceptions, etc. Before an adequate determination can be made of who is a class member, this court would be required to make an adjudication that a particular class member was denied a livelihood consistent with health and well-being because such plaintiff was not granted a shelter exception.

Id.

In this case, by approving the trial court’s definition, the trial court and the majority have relieved the plaintiffs from proving lia*401bility. By virtue of their expert’s testimony concerning which wells were not taken rat-ably, the plaintiffs establish their prima facie case, and the burden shifts to Intratex to defend itself. This adjudication is premature: liability is an issue that must be decided at trial, not during class certification.
Accordingly, I would reverse the order of the trial court.