Monthly Archives February 2015

In an interesting opinion, United States District Judge Carlos Murguia disposed of Defendant Defenbaugh Disposal, Inc.’s Motion for Reconsideration which questioned compatibility of the District Court’s order certifying a class of consumers charged an “environmental/fuel charge” and an “administrative fee,” and a concurrent order denying summary judgment against the sole putative class representative based on the voluntary payment doctrine.  Defenbaugh naturally questioned, among other less ripe issues, how the District Court could junk their summary judgment motion against Whitton as being too “heavily fact-dependent” to adjudicate at the summary judgment stage while concurrently certifying a class action.  In his order denying reconsideration, Judge Murguia defended his orders as compatible because the summary judgment issue was decided only with respect to the putative class representative, Mr. Whitton, “meaning that only Mr. Whitton’s actions or knowledge were relevant to defendants’ motion for summary judgment,” while “predominance is analyzed in terms of all…

Emphasizing the individualized nature of each putative class member’s experience, Judge Ortrie Smith denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in Combs v. The Cordish Companies et al., No. 14-0227, 2015 WL 438154 (W.D. Mo. Feb. 3, 2015). Alleging that the defendants unlawfully limited their access to Kansas City’s popular Power and Light District, the plaintiffs brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and sought to certify a class comprised of all persons of African-American descent who were “excluded, ejected, harassed, or suffered other discriminatory treatment” at the hands of the defendants. In denying class certification, Judge Smith homed in on the need for detailed and individual factual inquiries. In particular, he focused on the fact that putative class members would have to prove more than that the defendants intended to discriminate against them – they would also have to demonstrate that they were in fact victims of discrimination. This,…

How does one prove the citizenship of members of the putative class for purposes of applying CAFA’s jurisdictional exceptions?  For instance, the Local Controversy Exception under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(4) requires the federal district court to decline to exercise CAFA jurisdiction if (among other requirements) two-thirds of the putative class members are citizens of the state in which the action was originally filed.  But since absent class members are typically absent, how do you know? This issue popped up before Judge Harpool when the defendant which operated a microwave popcorn packaging plant in Jasper Missouri used CAFA to remove yet another diacetyl class.  While it is well-settled that the party seeking remand must prove the application of one of CAFA’s exceptions, this is easier said than done. Rather than apply strict proof, the district court elected to rely on “common sense” and “logic.”  Although only 41% of the class actually…

Close