Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:The plaintiffs, Hal Lapray, Tracy D. Wilson Jr. and Alisha Seale Owens, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, sued Compaq Computer Corp. alleging that Compaq sold them computers containing defective floppy disk controllers. The trial court certified a nationwide class under Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 42(b)(2) and (b)(3), and the court of appeals affirmed. HOLDING:Reversed and remanded. The class would be entitled to seek damages under the (b)(3) certification-as affirmed by the court of appeals-without any court ever having rigorously analyzed predominance and superiority. This directly conflicts with Southwestern Refining Co. v. Bernal, 22 S.W.3d 425 (Tex. 2000) � a conflict that is apparent from the face of the court of appeals’ opinion-and would operate to overrule it had the opinion issued from this court. Accordingly, this court has jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal. Rather than focus on whether monetary relief predominates, or whether injunctive or declaratory relief will be necessary at some point, the court holds that trial courts considering certification under (b)(2) must consider, and due process may require, individual notice and opt-out rights to class members who seek monetary damages under any theory. This conforms to U.S. Supreme Court guidance and discourages parties from artful pleading to circumvent what are perceived as stricter certification requirements under (b)(3). The court recognizes that (b)(2) played, and still plays, a valuable role in class action litigation. As used initially, primarily to stop classwide illegal treatment in the civil rights arena, (b)(2) filled a void that (b)(3) did not. With the evolution of the caselaw, the acceptance of the idea that injunctive or declaratory relief is available even under (b)(3), and the U.S. Supreme Court’s growing concern about mandatory classes that include damages, however, a mandatory (b)(2) consumer class may deprive its members of due process rights. In this case, all claims and all remedies were certified under both (b)(2) and (b)(3). The court is reluctant to affirm a (b)(2) class that includes claims for damages without the concomitant protections afforded by notice and opt-out and cannot do so without knowing whether class members will be provided these protections. While the court cannot say that no (b)(2) class can be certified absent notice and opt-out rights to class members, the court does state that, if damage claims are implicated, constitutional considerations will likely mandate such protections. The parties may not evade Bernal by seeking (b)(2) certification. The trial court did not rigorously analyze cohesiveness. The court reverses that part of the court of appeals’ judgment affirming certification of the (b)(2) class. Turning to the choice of law question, the court finds that the lower courts erred by failing to conduct a state-by-state analysis of the questions of law presented. Those courts never assessed the substance of other states’ laws but instead concluded that the theory was sound under Texas law. A proper review would have analyzed the relevant law of each state and the variations among states. The court finds substantial conflicts between jurisdictions. The court cannot affirm the application of Texas law on the basis that the law of all jurisdictions is identical. The trial court abused its discretion, therefore, in holding that Texas law bore the most significant relationship to, and therefore governed, all class members’ claims. The court concludes that Rule 42(b)(3)’s predominance requirement is not satisfied. OPINION:Jefferson, J., delivered the opinion of the court; Phillips, C.J., did not participate.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.