Duane Morris Class Action Review - 2023 - Report - Page 122
contentions were premature before a Rule 23 motion for class certification. The court
again agreed with Samsung that it was capable of engaging in Rule 23 analysis based
on the pleadings to date. Id. at *5-7. Accordingly, it considered how variations in the four
sub-classes’ states’ laws may have infiltrated issues common to the nationwide class.
Id.at *6. The court reviewed the consumer protection, fraudulent concealment, and
unjust enrichment laws in the four sub-classes’ states, and based on that review found
the laws of Texas, Nevada, Massachusetts, and South Carolina varied significantly
regarding the fraudulent concealment and consumer protection claims. Id. at *7.
Plaintiff’s failure to “extensively analyze variations in state law” precluded class
certification because it revealed the plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate common issues
would predominate in the nationwide class. Id. at *7.
When a putative class of homeowners brought breach of warranty, negligence, and
negligent failure to warn claims against manufacturers and a designer of plastic pipes,
the court granted the defendants’ motion to strike class allegations in Jones, et al. v.
Lubrizol Advanced Materials, Inc., 582 F. Supp. 3d 1045 (N.D. Ohio 2022). The putative
homeowner class alleged the pipes and fittings in their homes were defective and failed
prematurely. Id. at 1048-53. The defendants primarily argued the homeowner’s class
definition was overly broad such that it included homeowners who never experienced
any problems with their pipes. Id. at 1054-58. Because the defendants previously
moved to dismiss the class claims, the court found under Rule 12(f) that their motion to
strike was untimely. Id. at 1054. Instead, the court explained that Rule 23(d)(1)(D) was
the proper procedural mechanism to strike improper class allegations before class
certification if those allegations raised purely legal questions or could be revolved with
little factual development. Id. at 1054-55. “In this respect,” the court explained, “the court
treats the motion to strike as something of a pleading-stage determination.” Id. at 1055.
Applying a Rule 23(d) analysis, the court ultimately found the class failed to establish it
had standing and “no amount of discovery” could overcome that defect. Id. at *1058. It
reasoned that “where an allegedly defective product results in harm to every potential
class member that has already manifested, the class has standing. But where, as here,
the remaining allegations show a risk of harm in the future, the plaintiffs will not be able
to carry their burden under Rule 23 of establishing the propriety of class certification,
making striking the class allegations an appropriate procedural response.” Id. at *1057.
Unlike the Jones ruling, when faced with a motion to strike class allegations under Rule
12(f), the court denied the motion in Bennett, et al. v. North American Bancard, LLC,
2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34031 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2022). The plaintiffs’ putative class
consisted of consumers who North American Bancard, LLC (NAB) allegedly improperly
charged monthly fees. Id. The plaintiffs moved for class certification, and while it was
pending, NAB moved to strike the class claims. Id. The court denied NAB’s motion
because it found “Rule 12(f) is an improper vehicle for dismissing class claims [that]
should rather be addressed through Rule 23.” Id. at *2. The court opined that Rule
12(f) motions to strike are generally regarded with disfavor because of the limited
importance of pleading in federal practice, and because they are often used as a delay
tactic. Moreover, dismissal of a class at the pleading stage is rare because the class
121
© Duane Morris LLP 2023
Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2023
