Predominance Analysis: Multistate Classes and Choice of Law When Advocating or Opposing Certification

This CLE webinar will discuss establishing or challenging Rule 23's predominance requirement in a proposed national or multistate class action invoking laws of multiple states involving claims such as consumer protection, fraud, products liability, mass tort, or warranty claims.

When the named plaintiffs invoke the laws of their own jurisdictions, but the case will require applying the laws of other states to the claims of other class members, certification of a class alleging consumer protection, mass tort, or warranty claims is especially challenging. These cases often require courts to confront whether variations in state law, proof of causation, reliance, injury, damages, or available defenses create individualized issues that defeat predominance.

In these cases, defendants usually contend that plaintiffs cannot demonstrate predominance under Rule 23, especially if reliance or inducement is an issue. Plaintiffs, in turn, often argue that common evidence, subclasses, grouping of materially similar state laws, or other trial-management tools can address state-law variations and individualized questions.

Both plaintiffs and defendants in these types of cases will want to carefully analyze the elements of each claim, burdens of proof, burden shifting, available defenses, remedies, and causation standards under the laws of each applicable jurisdiction. Plaintiffs will want to propose solutions for dealing with individual issues, while defendants will want to show why individual issues prevent certification. The parties also must address a threshold choice-of-law question: whether one state’s law can govern the entire class, or whether the laws of multiple states must be applied.

Listen as this panel of class action experts discusses the viability of class certification for multistate class actions, choice of law issues, and the meaning of Rule 23's predominance requirement in cases involving materially different state-law claims.