Bill Heard Chevrolet Co. v. Thomas
Decision Date | 19 October 2001 |
Citation | 819 So.2d 34 |
Parties | BILL HEARD CHEVROLET COMPANY and Mayflower National Life Insurance Company v. James E. THOMAS and Dorothy L. Dixon. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Robert A. Huffaker of Rushton, Stakely, Johnston & Garrett, P.A., Montgomery, for Bill Heard Chevrolet Company.
Charles D. Stewart and Jason Lee Holly of Spain & Gillon, L.L.C., Birmingham, for Mayflower National Life Insurance Company.
Kenneth L. Funderburk and James P. Graham, Jr., of Funderburk, Day & Lane, Phenix City, for appellees.
Bill Heard Chevrolet Company ("Heard") and Mayflower National Life Insurance Company ("Mayflower") appeal from the trial court's order conditionally certifying two classes of plaintiffs as to certain claims in an action pending in the Russell Circuit Court. Because we conclude that the trial court failed to perform the rigorous analysis required in certifying a class and failed to allow Heard and Mayflower an adequate opportunity to present any evidence in opposition to the proposed conditional certification order, we reverse and remand with instructions.
James E. Thomas sued Heard; one of its employees, Bill Bratton; and a number of fictitiously named defendants, stating several claims arising from Thomas's purchase of a 1985 Cadillac Deville automobile from Heard. Thomas subsequently added Dorothy L. Dixon as a plaintiff2 and substituted Mercury Finance Company of Alabama ("Mercury")3 and Mayflower for two of the fictitiously named defendants.
On June 17, 1998, the plaintiffs filed their "Second Recasted and Amended Complaint." That complaint includes 18 counts. The majority of those counts (14) state claims on behalf of Thomas and Dixon only, but 4 of the counts, counts 15 through 18, state claims on behalf of putative classes. The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and requested a hearing on the motion.
The trial court conducted two hearings at which the plaintiffs' motion for class certification was discussed. At the first hearing, held on July 21, 1998, the issue of class certification was only briefly addressed. No evidence in support of class certification was offered at that hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court instructed the parties to file briefs in support of their respective positions regarding the class-certification motion.
On December 14, 1998, the trial court conducted another abbreviated hearing on issues related to the motion for class certification. The only substantive issue directly relevant to a class action under Ala. R. Civ. P. 23(a) discussed at this hearing was the issue of numerosity. Counsel for the plaintiffs orally argued the issue but presented no evidence in support of the motion to certify a class. However, shortly after this hearing, on December 21, 1998, the trial court entered an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The trial court amended that order on May 17, 1999, after another hearing.
The trial court vacated its orders and the parties then discussed the status of class certification at another hearing held on September 1, 2000. The record before this court indicates that at this hearing, the plaintiffs' counsel submitted to the trial court a nine-page proposed order; that order purported to grant the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The record reflects that the following exchange occurred at the September 1, 2000, hearing:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Government Employees Insurance Co. v. Bloodworth, No. M2003-02986-COA-R10-CV (Tenn. App. 6/29/2007), M2003-02986-COA-R10-CV.
...conducted a thorough analysis and fails to set forth detailed findings, the certification should be reversed); Bill Heard Chevrolet Co. v. Thomas, 819 So.2d 34, 40 (Ala. 2001) (holding that the certification order failed to meet the rigorous analysis standard because the order "fail[ed] to ......
-
Wofford v. M.J. Edwards & Sons Funeral Home Inc.
...conducted a thorough analysis and fails to set forth detailed findings, the certification should be reversed); Bill Heard Chevrolet Co. v. Thomas , 819 So.2d 34, 40 (Ala. 2001) (holding that the certification order failed to meet the rigorous analysis standard because the order "fail[ed] to......
-
Nat'l Sec. Fire & Cas. Co. v. DeWitt
...23 criteria; this evidence must be referenced in the trial court's order before class certification is proper.'" Bill Heard Chevrolet Co. v. Thomas, 819 So.2d 34, 40 (Ala.2001)." 37 So.3d at 121. Further, in Wyeth, Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama, 42 So.3d 1216, 1221–22 (Ala.201......
-
Houston Co. Health Care Auth. v. Williams
...of Birmingham Inc., 730 So.2d 150, 152 (Ala.1999)]; Ex parte Green Tree Fin. Corp., 723 So.2d 6 [(Ala.1998)]." Bill Heard Chevrolet Co. v. Thomas, 819 So.2d 34, 41-42 (Ala.2001). In connection with the plaintiffs' burden to demonstrate that class certification is proper, "[t]he trial court ......