Prudhomme v. Govt Empl Ins ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • Case: 21-30157     Document: 00516210259          Page: 1     Date Filed: 02/21/2022
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Fifth Circuit
    United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    February 21, 2022
    No. 21-30157                          Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    Eric Prudhomme, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated;
    Elvin Jack, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
    Plaintiffs—Appellants,
    versus
    Government Employees Insurance Company; Geico
    General Insurance Company,
    Defendants—Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Louisiana
    USDC No. 6:15-CV-98
    Before King, Costa, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
    Per Curiam:*
    In this appeal of the district court’s denial of class certification,
    Appellants are a group of GEICO customers in Louisiana who received
    payouts for total-loss automobile claims. These customers allege GEICO’s
    *
    Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
    opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
    circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
    Case: 21-30157      Document: 00516210259            Page: 2    Date Filed: 02/21/2022
    No. 21-30157
    proprietary valuation system violated La. R.S. 22:1892B(5) and La. R.S.
    22:1973(A), (B)(5), but their suit veered off the road at the class-certification
    stage. The district court concluded that Appellants’ proposed class failed for
    want of commonality, adequacy, and predominance. Because the district
    court did not abuse its discretion in denying class certification based on its
    adequacy concerns, we AFFIRM without comment on commonality or
    predominance. Cf., e.g., Bell Atl. Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 
    339 F.3d 294
    , 303 (5th
    Cir. 2003) (affirming narrowly).
    The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that the “representative
    parties [in a class-action] will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the
    class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4); see also, e.g., Amchem Prods., Inc. v.
    Windsor, 
    521 U.S. 591
    , 625–26 (1997) (observing that “[a] class
    representative must . . . ‘possess the same interest and suffer the same injury’
    as the class members” (citations omitted)). This compels attention to “the
    risk of ‘conflicts of interest between the named plaintiffs and the class they
    seek to represent.’” Slade v. Progressive, 
    856 F.3d 408
    , 412 (5th Cir. 2017)
    (quoting Feder v. Elec. Data Sys. Corp., 
    429 F.3d 125
    , 130 (5th Cir. 2005)).
    Consistent with this obligation, the district court questioned whether
    Appellants’ theory of liability was, in fact, beneficial to the proposed class. It
    was not. Indeed, a portion of the proposed class members received payments
    above (that is, benefitted from) the allegedly unlawful valuation. This
    undermined Appellants’ class-wide theory of liability and thereby doomed
    adequacy. See, e.g., Langbecker v. Elec. Data Sys. Corp., 
    476 F.3d 299
    , 315 (5th
    Cir. 2007) (noting “intra class conflicts may negate adequacy,” citing as
    examples Valley Drug Co. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 
    350 F.3d 1181
    , 1189–92
    (11th Cir. 2003), and Pickett v. Iowa Beef Processors, 
    209 F.3d 1276
    , 1280 (11th
    Cir. 2000)); see also, e.g., Slade, 856 F.3d at 411–12 (remanding given newly
    raised claim that created intra-class conflict and thereby implicated
    adequacy). See generally Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 
    564 U.S. 338
    , 350 n.5
    2
    Case: 21-30157        Document: 00516210259              Page: 3       Date Filed: 02/21/2022
    No. 21-30157
    (2011) (recognizing other Rule 23(a) requirements “tend to merge with” the
    adequacy standard, which typically pertains to conflicts (citation omitted)).
    Neither are we compelled by Appellants’ belated, remedial assertion
    that class members who received overpayments were hypothetically entitled
    to other damages under Louisiana law. Even if true, this does little more than
    raise uncontemplated impediments to certification—like typicality, see Fed.
    R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3) (“[T]he claims . . . of the representative parties [must
    be] typical of the claims or defenses of the class.”); see also, e.g., Stirman v.
    Exxon Corp., 
    280 F.3d 554
    , 562 (5th Cir. 2002) (analyzing typicality)—that
    we decline to address as a matter of first impression on these facts. Cf. Slade,
    856 F.3d at 412–15 & n.1 (remanding intervening adequacy problems).
    Appellants simply offer too little, too late.
    Appellants’ remaining arguments are equally unavailing. For one,
    Appellants suggest cases like Mitchell v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 
    954 F.3d 700
     (5th Cir. 2020), or Stuart v. State Farm, 
    910 F.3d 371
     (8th Cir. 2018),
    involved adequacy. They did not. See Mitchell, 954 F.3d at 710–12 (discussing
    predominance and superiority); Stuart, 910 F.3d at 375–77 (analyzing
    predominance, superiority, and standing). Likewise, Appellants’ invocation
    of Slade is inapt. Nary a word of Slade supports the notion that class
    representatives can shoulder a theory of liability that disadvantages a portion
    of the class they allegedly represent. 1 Nor did we insinuate in Slade that a
    lower court errs by failing to sua sponte remediate intra-class conflicts through
    opt-out. 2 Appellants’ belief otherwise is mistaken.
    1
    To the contrary, we remanded precisely because the district court needed to
    assess adequacy given the potential waiver of class members’ claims. Slade, 856 F.3d at 415.
    2
    This much is evident in the fact that questions about a potential intra-class
    conflict (and as a corollary, the remedial capacity of opt-outs) arose after appeal—not
    before. Id. at 412–15 & n.1.
    3
    Case: 21-30157   Document: 00516210259       Page: 4   Date Filed: 02/21/2022
    No. 21-30157
    AFFIRMED.
    4