One of the most common impediments to the certification of nationwide consumer fraud and warranty class actions is the variation in state laws applicable to the class members’ claims. Courts frequently conclude that the need to apply a patchwork of 50 states’ laws makes a trial of proposed class’s claims unmanageable and therefore defeats the predominance and superiority requirements of Fed. R. Civ P. 23(b)(3).
In response, class action proponents often advance the argument that a single state’s law — the law of the manufacturer’s residence — should apply to the claims of all class members. Recently, the multidistrict litigation transferee court presiding over the economic-loss claims in the Toyota Unintended Acceleration Litigation issued an order denying the plaintiffs’ motion to apply the law of California — one defendant’s residence — to the claims of all putative class members, while leaving the door open to applying California law to nonresidents’ claims that were originally filed in California. See In re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, 2011 WL 2276271 (C.D. Calif. June 8, 2011).
