Court Opinion

ID: 9806544
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 19:11:54.845531+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:08:25.970177
License: Public Domain

CROTHERS, Justice,
dissenting.
[¶ 74] I respectfully dissent. I disagree with reversal of the order denying class certification because Baker failed to challenge the district court’s findings on one of the four mandatory factors, because the majority incorrectly applies the commonality factor and because several fair and efficient adjudication sub-factors are misconstrued.
[¶ 75] The proponent of class certification must establish four factors, with one factor being determined using thirteen non-exclusive sub-factors. N.D.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2); Mann v. N.D. Tax Comm’r, 2007 ND 119, ¶ 32, 736 N.W.2d 464 (identifying the four requirements for certification as numerosity, commonality, fair and efficient adjudication and an adequate class representative). All four factors must be met before a class action can be certified. *809Mann. at ¶ 32. The numerosity and commonality factors were not addressed by the district court. Majority opinion at ¶¶ 14-15. The factors were not ignored; rather, they apparently were conceded by the defendants as supporting class certification. Id. We must presume the district court correctly applied those factors because they were not challenged in the district court or on appeal. State v. Maurstad, 2002 ND 121, ¶ 39, 647 N.W.2d 688 (“Because [these issues were] not briefed or raised below, we do not consider [them] on this appeal.”) (quoting Minot v. Freelander, 380 N.W.2d 321, 324 n. 4 (N.D.1986)); State v. Duchene, 2007 ND 31, ¶ 10, 727 N.W.2d 769 (“Issues not briefed by an appellant are deemed abandoned, and thereby become the law of the case and will not be considered on appeal.”); Majority opinion at ¶ 14.
[¶ 76] What was challenged in the district court and on appeal is whether a class action will permit fair and efficient adjudication. Whether Baker is an adequate class representative is not challenged. Both are important; the latter is disposi-tive.
I
Adequacy of Class Representative
[¶ 77] The named plaintiff must convince the district court that he or she adequately represents the putative class. N.D.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2)(C); Mann. 2007 ND 119, ¶ 32, 736 N.W.2d 464. The representative party must adequately represent the claims and interests of each class member who will be foreclosed from bringing their own action and who will be bound by the result in the class proceeding. See Werlinger v. Champion Healthcare Corp., 1999 ND 173, ¶¶ 22-23, 598 N.W.2d 820; Majority opinion at ¶¶ 65-68. The district court found, “Baker does not fairly and adequately represent the class.” Baker has not challenged that finding. Majority opinion at ¶ 65. Notwithstanding this lack of challenge, the majority says the factor should be addressed on remand. Id. I respectfully disagree.
[¶ 78] Nothing exists to consider on remand. The district court denied certification because the class representative was inadequate. That finding was not appealed and is law of the case. Duchene, 2007 ND 31, ¶ 10, 727 N.W.2d 769. An adequate representative is both constitutionally and practically essential to a class proceeding. Denial of certification should be affirmed on this basis alone because the finding was not challenged and it has not been reversed.
II
Commonality is Not at Issue
[¶ 79] The majority reverses the district court’s order denying class certification due to what in various places it labels a misapplication of law in its Civil Rule 23 analysis. Below I explain where I disagree with the majority’s fair and efficient adjudication discussion. A larger problem with the majority opinion is that it constructs a “commonality” argument that the appellant did not make in this Court or the district court. Majority opinion at ¶¶ 14-15. It then criticizes the district court for analysis it purportedly made but did not. Id. at ¶26. In the process, the majority improperly recasts and conflates part of the district court’s “fair and efficient adjudication” analysis under N.D.R.Civ.P. 23(c) into an apparently overriding and supposedly incorrect application of the commonality factor under N.D.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(2). The majority states:
“Although the court focused its analysis on the fair and efficient adjudication factor and its thirteen sub-factors in N.D.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(1)(A)-(M), the substance of the court’s reasoning under *810each sub-factor primarily focused on the inadequacy of common questions of fact. Because individual differences in treatment or potential damages with respect to the various vehicle contracts does not defeat commonality, we conclude the district court erred in applying the law to the thirteen sub-factors of the fair and efficient adjudication factor.” ,
Id. at ¶ 16. I respectfully disagree with both the approach and the conclusion.
[¶ 80] The majority’s analysis is misdirected because commonality was not challenged in the district court or on appeal. Id. at ¶¶ 14-15. More than harmless dicta, the majority essentially converts the district court’s fair and efficient adjudication analysis into a commonality consideration. The majority’s conversion is apparent from paragraph 16 discussed above, and from their supposition in paragraph 26:
“There is also some indication the district court operated under the erroneous view that commonality requires both common questions' of law and fact. The court, apparently referring to commonality, stated, ‘[w]hile there may indeed be common questions of law regarding usury and compliance with the retail installment sales act, common questions of fact are missing. Each individual contract will need to be reviewed to determine whether any violations of law occurred, and what an appropriate remedy would be.’ This is an incorrect interpretation of the law. Only one question of law or fact is required to establish commonality. Bice [v. Petro-Hunt, L.L.C.], 2004 ND 113, ¶ 9, 681 N.W.2d 74. While either a single question of law or fact is sufficient, this case presents several questions of both law and fact that are common to the proposed class.”
Majority opinion at ¶ 26.
[¶81] The district court demonstrated no such confusion regarding commonality. Other than in a passing reference to the factor, the district court never analyzed the requirement because commonality was conceded, as was elsewhere acknowledged by the majority. Majority opinion at ¶¶ 14-15. Moreover, commonality is a simple inquiry about whether common questions of fact or law exist. Majority opinion at ¶¶ 18-19. The factor is easily satisfied. Bice v. Petro-Hunt, L.L.C., 2004 ND 113, ¶ 9, 681 N.W.2d 74. By comparison, the fair and efficient adjudication factor uses thirteen probing and more exacting inquiries into whether a class proceeding will allow a court to adequately adjudicate all class members’ claims while also affording the defendants an opportunity to defend against the action. N.D.R.Civ.P. 23(c).
Ill
Fair and Efficient Adjudication
[¶ 82] North Dakota Civil Rule 23(c) provides a list of thirteen non-exclusive sub-factors for determining whether class proceedings will provide all parties a fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. “The trial court must weigh the competing factors, and no one factor predominates over the others.” Rose v. United Equitable Ins. Co., 2002 ND 148, ¶ 9, 651 N.W.2d 683. This Court has explained:
“In most cases some of the thirteen factors will weigh against certification and some will weigh in favor. It is for the trial court, employing its broad discretion, to weigh the competing factors and determine whether a class action will provide a fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. Thus, even if' ... [some] of the factors weigh against certification, that does not preclude the court from certifying the class action if, *811in its opinion, those factors are outweighed by other factors supporting certification.”
Id. (quoting Peterson v. Dougherty Dawkins, Inc., 1998 ND 159, ¶ 15, 583 N.W.2d 626). Because the decision is so highly discretionary, the opposite also is true in that a district court could find a majority of sub-factors favor certification but those sub-factors are outweighed by others warranting denial of certification. Thus, class certification is determined by the district court weighing each sub-factor rather than simply counting the number of sub-factors checked “yes” or “no.”
[¶ 83] I agree with the substance of the majority’s writings on sub-factors (A), (C), (E), (F), (H), (I), (J), (L) and (M). For reasons explained below, I disagree the district court abused its discretion deciding sub-factors (B), (D), (G) and (K). If the inadequacy of the class representative was not dispositive, I would remand for further consideration of sub-factor (F). See Klagues v. Maintenance Eng’g, 2002 ND 59, ¶ 22, 643 N.W.2d 45; Majority opinion at ¶ 71.
A
Sub-factor (B): The Risk of Inconsistent Adjudications
[¶ 84] The pertinent rule requires consideration of:
“whether prosecuting separate actions by or against individual class members would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual class members that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for a party opposing the class.”
N.D.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(1)(B). The majority concludes the district court misapplied the law. Majority opinion at ¶ 33. I agree the district court failed to use the correct legal analysis. However, the error was invited and reversal is not warranted. Wagner v. Miskin, 2003 ND 69, ¶ 15, 660 N.W.2d 593.
[¶ 85] The district court found sub-factor (B) did not favor certification because individual recovery depends on the merits of each individual’s claim. It ruled the standards to which the defendants must be held are established by statute and do not vary from plaintiff to plaintiff so that no danger exists of inconsistent or varying adjudications. The risk of inconsistent adjudications is not that some might win their case while others lose theirs. Rather, “[t]he inconsistent and varying adjudications factor in N.D.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(1)(B), only applies to actions in which the non-class party could be sued for different and incompatible affirmative relief, as opposed to actions seeking money damages.” Klagues, 2002 ND 59, ¶ 13, 643 N.W.2d 45 (citing Ritter, Laber & Assocs. v. Koch Oil, Inc., 2000 ND 15, ¶ 16, 605 N.W.2d 153). “Generally, incompatible standards under N.D.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(1)(B) occur when the party opposing the class certification would be unable to comply with one judgment without violating the terms of another judgment.” Klagues, at ¶ 13 (citing Werlinger, 1999 ND 173, ¶ 50, 598 N.W.2d 820 and 5 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.41[2][a] (3d ed.1997)).
[¶ 86] The district court did not correctly apply sub-factor (B). However, Baker did not argue for application of the proper legal test. She instead argues about the danger of different outcomes and “a real need for judicial uniformity.” When the evidence is viewed through application of the correct law, we have not been shown that separate causes of action would risk inconsistent or varying adjudications creating rulings with which the defendants could not comply without violating other rulings in similar cases. Further, Baker cannot now gain advantage *812from his earlier incorrect legal argument. The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion finding this sub-factor does not favor certification due to invited and harmless error.
B
Sub-factor (D): Whether Defendants Have Acted on Grounds that Apply Generally to the Class, so that Final Injunc-tive Relief or Corresponding Declaratory Relief is Appropriate
[¶ 87] This sub-factor inquires whether the plaintiff seeks injunctive or declaratory relief. N.D.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(1)(D); Majority opinion at ¶36. Sub-factor (D) requires that the district court examine “whether a party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate with respect to the class as a whole.” N.D.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(1)(D). Our Rule 23 provides no guidance for application of this inquiry. See id. Explanatory Note. No North Dakota or Iowa case explains application of the sub-factor either. The federal class action rule has a similar provision and provides insight into how the sub-factor operates.
[¶ 88] The federal class action rule is structured differently than the Uniform Class Action Rule adopted in North Dakota and Iowa. The application of Federal Civil Rule 23 nevertheless may aid in our application of similar provisions in North Dakota Civil Rule 23. See Vos v. Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co., 667 N.W.2d 36, 44 (Iowa 2003); Vignaroli v. Blue Cross of Iowa, 360 N.W.2d 741, 743 (Iowa 1985) (Uniform Class Action Rule may be interpreted by looking to authorities construing similar provisions in the federal class action rule). While the “injunctive relief’ inquiry in North Dakota is a sub-consideration of whether class certification will provide fair and efficient adjudication, the federal rule allows class certification in four situations, one of which is in an injunction action when the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds applicable to the whole class. See 2 William B. Rubenstein, Newberg on Class Actions § 4:1 (5th ed.2012) (“Rule 23(b) identifies four situations in which representative litigation is appropriate.”). Professor Rubenstein explains the difference in the four types of federal class proceedings and their procedural requirements:
“Rule 23(b)(1)(A) describes the use of a class action in a situation where the prosecution of ‘separate actions by or against individual members of the class would create a risk of incompatible standards of conduct for the adverse party due to inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the class.’ This category is somewhat opaque and rarely utilized. The category generally does not cover situations in which multiple plaintiffs sue a single defendant for money damages — for instance, for a mass accident or a product defect — with some plaintiffs prevailing and some losing; the fact that the defendant must pay some claimants but not others does not create the ‘incompatible standards of conduct’ at which the Rule is aimed. Rather, Rule 23(b)(1)(A) is reserved for that subset of cases in which the different adjudicatory outcomes would put the defendant in a true bind — for example, if bondholders sued to have a bond declared invalid and some won and some lost; in that circumstance, the municipality would not know how to proceed "with regard to its outstanding obligations. The (b)(1)(A) class action is often referred to as an ‘incompatible standards’ suit.
*813“Rule 23(b)(1)(B) establishes the propriety of a mandatory class action in situations where an individual judgment, ‘while not technically concluding the other members, might do so as a practical matter.’ This occurs, for example, when many plaintiffs are likely individually to sue a single defendant whose funds are so limited that they are incapable of satisfying all the potential claimants. A class action in these circumstances assures fairness by providing an equitable, pro rata distribution of funds among all claimants. As this situation is its paradigm case, the (b)(1)(B) class action is often referred to as a ‘limited fund’ class action.
“Rule 23(b)(2) authorizes a class action when a party has taken or refused to take action with respect to a class, and ‘final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate with respect to the class as a whole.’ This category is typically employed in cases seeking structural injunctions and other actions not seeking money damages; indeed, the Supreme Court has held that monetary relief is generally not available in (b)(2) class actions. The (b)(2) class action is often referred to as an ‘injunc-tive’ class suit or, because of its frequent use in the field, as a ‘civil rights’ class action.
“Finally, subdivision (b)(3) permits a class action in all other circumstances where the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) are met, and two additional criteria are satisfied: (1) that questions of law or fact common to members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members and (2) that a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. This is the most common category for money damage cases, especially small claims class actions, and hence is commonly referred to as the ‘money damage’ class action.
“While each part of Rule 23(b) describes a different type of fact situation, a single case may be certified under more than one part of the rule. That said, Rule 23 inscribes a critical distinction between 23(b)(1) and (b)(2) class actions on the one hand and 23(b)(3) class actions on the other. Specifically, Rule 23(c) requires that class members be given notice of the certification of a money damage class action brought under Rule 23(b)(3) and the right to opt out of such a case; the Supreme Court has similarly held that the Due Process Clause requires these special protections in money damage cases. Rule 23(b)(1) and (b)(2) class actions, by contrast, permit, but do not require, a court to give notice to class members of the certification of such a case, nor do they require that the court provide the class members with an opportunity to opt out; few courts accept the invitation. This is so because class actions under these parts of Rule 23(b) are often thought -of as more organic cases in which the class’s interests are so cohesive that opting out would be a non sequitur. For example, in a school desegregation case like Brown v. Board of Education, [347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873 (1954) ] the plaintiffs’ success would likely lead to the integration of the public schools; it is not clear how any member of the plaintiff class could ‘opt out’ of such an action. Nonetheless, most circuits permit a court overseeing a class action to enable opt-out rights in (b)(1) and (b)(2) cases in certain circumstances or enable a court to certify a non-opt-out class under (b)(2) for the injunctive aspects of the case and an opt-out class under (b)(3) for the monetary aspects. Because (b)(1) and (b)(2) cases generally do *814not enable litigants to opt out, they are often referred to as ‘mandatory’ class actions.
“It is commonplace to state that notice is also discretionary in (b)(1) and (b)(2) class actions, but in fact, that is misleading: notice that such a case that has been certified is discretionary primarily because there is no corresponding opt out right, but a court is required to provide notice to the class that such a case has settled (and if attorney’s fees are requested) — and class members are ensured an opportunity to voice concerns with these proposals in writing or in person at a fairness hearing. In this sense, class certification assists class members in mandatory classes by providing a mechanism for their concerns to be voiced to a court that is about to issue a judgment likely to affect their interests and to foreclose their rights.”
2 Rubenstein, supra, § 4:1 (footnotes omitted). Regarding injunctive relief verses monetary claims, Professor Rubenstein states:
“Rule 23(b)(2) requires that ‘final in-junctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief be appropriate. In the vast bulk of cases, it is easy to ascertain whether the remedy that the plaintiffs seek is injunctive, hence enabling (b)(2) certification, as opposed to monetary, which generally bars certification under Rule 23(b)(2).”
2 Rubenstein, supra, § 4:31 (footnotes omitted).
[¶ 89] Baker voluntarily dismissed her federal law claims with injunctive relief remedies, causing this case to be remanded from federal to state court after the federal court refused to certify a class. Defendant Auto, Inc. made clear in its state district court briefing on class certification that “[biased on the very wording of her motion, it is presumed that plaintiffs motion for class action certification is based on the claims in the amended complaint (usury and RISA) and not the claims set forth in plaintiffs original complaint.” Baker confirmed Auto Inc.’s statement and agreed she dismissed claims for which in-junctive relief was sought.
[¶ 90] The district court found this sub-factor did not favor class certification because an individualized determination was needed on each retail installment contract to decide whether each contract violated the law. The court reasoned that the defendants are obligated to follow the law, and to the extent the defendants have violated the law, the individual who suffered harm may rely on statutory remedies to redress the violation. The court also stated it would not enjoin a party from breaking the law.
[¶ 91] I believe the district court reached the correct conclusion, but perhaps not based on the correct law, because it is not clear the district court analyzed this sub-factor in the context of whether Baker sought injunctive or declaratory relief. Normally, the misapplication of a fair and efficient adjudication factor requires remand. Klagues, 2002 ND 59, ¶ 22, 643 N.W.2d 45; Ritter, Laber and Assocs. v. Koch Oil, Inc., 2000 ND 15, ¶ 31, 605 N.W.2d 153; Werlinger, 1999 ND 173, ¶ 56, 598 N.W.2d 820; cf. Rogelstad v. Farmers Union Grain Terminal Ass’n, Inc., 226 N.W.2d 370, 378 (N.D.1975) (reversing for certification of class after district court erroneously applied predecessor Rule 23 certification factors). Here, however, the plaintiff did not seek injunctive relief. The result is that, as a matter of law, this consideration could not be decided in favor of class certification and the error is harmless. See Investors Title Ins. Co. v. Herzig, 2010 ND 169, ¶ 40, 788 N.W.2d 312 (“[W]e will not set aside a correct result merely because the district *815court’s reasoning is incorrect if the result is the same under the correct law and reasoning”) (citation and quotation marks omitted). On the record before us and as a matter of law, the district court’s negative findings on this consideration were not an abuse of discretion because Baker is not seeking declaratory or injunctive relief and this sub-factor does not favor certification.
C
Sub-factor (G): Whether a Class Action Offers the Most Appropriate Means of Adjudicating the Claims and Defenses
[¶ 92] Sub-factór (G) looks at both claims and defenses to determine whether a representative class proceeding provides the most appropriate means of adjudication. N.D.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(1)(G). The district court found sub-factor (G) did not favor certification because the court must look at both the claims and the defenses. The district court earlier acknowledged that Baker presented a common legal claim but that any determination of facts would be particularly individualized. Under this sub-factor, the district court explained it could not issue a blanket finding that the defendants violated the usury law in all 500 contracts “either because the fluctuating formula required for determining usury removes a contract from the ambit of the usury law, or the defendants properly disclosed everything required by the retail installment sales act_” I believe the district court’s findings demonstrate neither a misapplication of law nor an absence of facts supporting the ruling. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion by finding this consideration did not favor class certification.
[¶ 93] The majority’s reversal provides the district court no guidance on remand, and instead apparently holds that sub-factor (G) is satisfied as a matter of law any time putative class members have numerous small claims. I respectfully submit that is a misapplication of law. Such a holding means commonality predominates over all other factors and sub-factors. Such a holding obliterates the district court’s discretion to select the “most appropriate” method of trial for hundreds of claims and up to 500 defenses. Such a holding also ignores our highly differential standard of review. Rose, 2002 ND 148, ¶ 5, 651 N.W.2d 683 (“The trial court’s decision to certify a class action will not be overturned on appeal unless the court has abused its discretion.”) (citations omitted).
D
Sub-factor (K): Whether Management of the Class Action Poses Unusual Difficulties
[¶ 94] Sub-factor (K) requires determination “whether management of the class action poses unusual difficulties.” N.D.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(1)(K). The majority acknowledges that little has been written in North Dakota about “manageability.” See Majority opinion at ¶ 57; Old Broadway Corp. v. Hjelle, 411 N.W.2d 81, 85 (N.D.1987) (holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying certification due to manageability concerns where the subject of litigation was often-changing highway billboard advertising).
[¶ 95] The federal class action rule also has a “manageability” prong. ■ The federal rule considers whether class proceedings are “superior” to other methods of adjudication. Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3)(D). “The manageability factor ‘encompasses the whole range of practical problems that may render the class action format inappropriate for a particular suit.’ ” 2 Ruben-stein, supra, § 4:72 (footnote omitted); Majority opinion at ¶ 58. Rather than permitting the district court to weigh “the *816whole range of practical problems,” the majority in effect adopts a presumption that a class proceeding is manageable. That is a mistake. I submit the question is better left to the district court judge who will be stuck managing the class and the appellate court should adhere to its highly differential standard of review. Rose, 2002 ND 148, ¶ 5, 651 N.W.2d 683.
[¶ 96] Here, the district court found sub-factor (K) did not favor class certification. The court reasoned that every member of the alleged class has a different, individual claim. “There is not one action which will control the outcome for the entire class, but potentially 500 or more ‘mini-actions’ to be managed.” The court’s reasoning was nearly the same for finding common questions did not predominate. According to Newberg, predominance and manageability are closely linked. 2 Ru-benstein, supra, § 4:72; Majority opinion at ¶ 58. The district court recognized under its analysis of sub-factor (M) that the putative class consists of small claims, which Newberg acknowledges supports class treatment. 2 Rubenstein, supra, § 4:69. The district court considered these many and conflicting facts and reached a conclusion. It did not misapply the law. Rather, it decided this sub-factor based on the correct law and on facts in the record. Because the result was within the range of permissible options, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding management of this class poses unusual management difficulties.
[¶ 97] I note the majority also cites the Rubenstein Treatise for the principle that manageability and predominance are closely tied. Majority opinion at ¶ 58 (“[T]he manageability concern often simply echos the predominance analysis. Therefore, courts generally hold that if the predominance requirement is met, then the manageability requirement is met as well.”) (quoting 2 Rubenstein, supra, § 4:72). Here, the majority affirms the district court’s finding that sub-factor (E) on predominance did not favor certification. ■ Majority opinion at ¶¶ 40-43. Yet the majority inexplicably silences the “echo” between predominance and manageability when concluding the district court abused its discretion on manageability. I believe the majority’s unexplained conflicting results on these two sub-factors needlessly dilutes our precedent and will confuse both the trial bench and the bar.
E
Conclusion
[¶ 98] In conducting its analysis of the thirteen fair and efficient adjudication considerations, the district court found, “[T]here may indeed be common questions of law regarding usury and compliance with the retail installment sales act, common questions of fact are missing.” It also found, “Allowing a class action to proceed will be no more efficient than requiring individual lawsuits, since each claim will rise or fall on its individual merits.” Throughout its order, the district court provided a comprehensive review and an in-depth and pertinent analysis. In the end, nine sub-factors weighed against certification, three weighed in favor and one weighed evenly. The district court did not deny certification based on a numerical checkoff but instead provided due consideration to each sub-factor as applied to the facts of the case. Nothing in the district court’s twelve pages of analysis appears unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. Other than was noted for sub-factors (D) and (F), the district court did not misinterpret or misapply the law. Those errors were either harmless, invited or both. Accordingly, under our highly deferential standard of review, and given the district court’s analysis and findings of fact, the *817court did not abuse its discretion and we should affirm rather than substitute our judgment and reverse,
IV
Review of Case Merits
[¶ 99] The majority states the district court must decide whether to certify a class “without delving into the merits.” Majority opinion at ¶ 9. I agree that is a correct, but incomplete, statement of the law. When discussion of the district court’s inquiry into whether common questions predominate, this Court held, “[A] pragmatic assessment of the entire action and all of the issues is involved in making the determination.” Werlinger, 1999 ND 173, ¶ 33, 598 N.W.2d 820. When determining the fair and efficient adjudication sub-factors generally and the predominance factor in particular, courts “require sufficient information with which to form a reasonable judgment.” Iowa Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church v. Bringle, 409 N.W.2d 471, 474 (Iowa 1987). “[I]t was appropriate — even necessary— for the trial court to consider the nature of the claim asserted in ruling on the request for certification.” Id. Sub-factor (G) on the appropriate means of adjudication makes clear that the court’s understanding of the case must include consideration of both the claims and the defenses. N.D.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(1)(G). Therefore, while the district court cannot and should not decide at the certification stage whether the plaintiffs claims are meritorious, the district court nevertheless must fully understand the legal nature of the claims and defenses to intelligently decide whether the requirements are met for allowing class certification.
[¶ 100] As indicated above, by applying our abuse of discretion standard of review, I conclude the district court did not err in denying class certification. I would affirm.
[¶ 101] LISA FAIR McEVERS, J., concurs.