Class Actions Brief Blog

Unlike many pretrial rulings, “[a] district court’s order denying or granting class status is inherently tentative.” Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 469 n. 11 (1978). Rule 23 expressly provides that “[a]n order that grants or denies class certification may be altered or amended before final judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(C). Indeed, as the Fourth Circuit observed, in a case our firm handled, “an order certifying a class must be reversed if it becomes apparent, at any time during the pendency of the proceeding, that class treatment of the action is inappropriate.” Stott v. Haworth, 916 F.2d 134, 139 (4th Cir. 1990) (emphasis added).

In Foster v. CEVA Freight, LLC, No. 3:10-cv-00095 (W.D.N.C.), Judge Whitney granted certification to a class of persons seeking injunctive relief for alleged Truth In Leasing Act violations. But the case evolved, and – as it approached trial – had changed into one alleging damages for breach of contract totaling $100 million. After initially declining to revisit class certification, Judge Whitney granted CEVA’s motion to decertify the damages claims, concluding that the prevalence of individually negotiated contracts destroyed commonality. Citing Wal-Mart, the Court held that there was “no longer proof of any ‘glue holding the alleged reasons for [Defendant’s 1.5 million payment] decisions together,’ much less a ‘common contention’ ‘of such a nature that it is capable of classwide resolution.”

In general, the Fourth Circuit hasn’t been fond of “glomming together” contract actions. See Broussard v. Meineke Disc. Muffler Shops Inc., 155 F.3d 331, 340 (4th Cir. 1998) (“[P]laintiffs cannot amalgamate multiple contract actions into one”).

John Wester, David Wright, Stephen Cox and Adam Doerr of our firm were retained to serve as counsel for CEVA following the initial certification of the class.