In re Emerson Elec. Co.
Decision Date | 01 December 2017 |
Docket Number | Case No. 4:12MD2382 HEA,MDL No. 2382 |
Parties | IN RE: EMERSON ELECTRIC CO. WET/DRY VAC MARKETING AND SALES LITIGATION, THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: ALL ACTIONS |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
This matter is before the court on the named Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class, [Doc. No. 115]. This is an action for violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, Mo.Rev.Stat. § 1407.010, et seq., breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, violations of consumer protection laws in various states for subclasses and breach of implied warranty-redhibition on behalf of the Louisiana subclass.
Relevant to the class certification issue are plaintiffs' allegations that defendant misled the public, including plaintiffs, into purchasing or paying more for defendant's product, the RIGID wet/dry vacuum, that it did not perform as expressly and impliedly marketed through a national and uniform advertising campaign. The marketing was based on the stated wet/dry vacuum's "Peak HP." Plaintiffs allege the vacuum cannot attain the advertised horsepower in a standard, household electrical wall outlet.
The plaintiffs now seek certification under Missouri law, or alternatively with subclasses for the different home states of the various plaintiffs. This case presents the classic case for treatment as a class action: that is, the commonality linking the class members is the dispositive question in the lawsuit. The issue of liability predominates over whatever individual inquiries will have to be performed to determine damages.
The Court must initially determine what state's law applies in order to ascertain whether the class certification requirements have been met. "District courts sitting in diversity apply the choice-of-law rules of the state where they sit." Winter v. Novartis Pharm. Corp.
, 739 F.3d 405, 410 (8th Cir. 2014). Missouri follows the "most significant relationship" test from the Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Laws § 145 for resolving choice-of-law questions. Zafer Chiropractic & Sports Injuries, P.A. v. Hermann, 501 S.W.3d 545, 550 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016). The factors to be considered under § 145 are: (1) the place where the injury occurred, (2) the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred, (3) the domicil, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties, and (4) the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties iscentered. Am. Guarantee & Liab. Ins. Co. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 668 F.3d 991, 996 (8th Cir. 2012) (citing Thompson by Thompson v. Crawford, 833 S.W.2d 868, 870 (Mo. 1992)). The most important contact is the center of the parties' relationship. See Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 221 cmt. on subsec. (2).
Plaintiffs seek to have this action decided pursuant to Missouri Law, except with respect to their redhibition claim under Louisiana statutes, where plaintiffs seek to certify a sub-class. Defendant argues that the law of the states represented by the individual plaintiffs applies.
The analysis is not complicated here. The Court will consider each of the Restatement factors. With respect to the place where the injury occurred, the Court finds this factor in favor of the laws of the separate states. Plaintiffs claim they have been injured by the representation of peak horsepower. This alleged injury necessarily occurred in the plaintiffs' home states where they purchased the wet/dry vacs. This factor favors application of the various state laws where plaintiffs reside.
Plaintiffs claim that the conduct causing the injury was defendant's advertising a peak horsepower that was not accurate. The development and implementation of the advertising campaign occurred at defendant's place ofbusiness, which is in St. Louis, Missouri. Thus, the conduct causing the injury favors application of Missouri law.
The domicils, residences, place of incorporation and place of business of the defendant are in different states, thereby rendering this factor essentially neutral.
Regarding the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered, the most important contact, this factor favors application of Missouri law since the central issue of the case, whether the advertisement campaign is misleading, originated in Missouri.
Particularly in relation to the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA), Defendant argues that Perras v. H & R Block, 789 F.3d 914 (8th Cir. 2015) resolves the issue against application of the MMPA.
To continue reading
Request your trial