Issue

Class certification—inconsistent definitions of class—further issues for review on remand

Summary

In a class action lawsuit arising from an allegedly deceptive promotional flyer that a car dealership sent to plaintiffs–who were led to believe that they had won either a large cash prize or a free car when, in fact, they had won only two dollars–the trial court's class certification order was vacated because of an internal inconsistency in the order that precluded meaningful appellate review. Specifically, the court's order defined the prospective class in one way–as individuals who called the hotline listed on the flyer and then went to the car dealership to claim their prize–when analyzing the certification criteria, but then defined the class differently–as individuals who went to the car dealership to claim the prize regardless of whether they called the hotline–when certifying the class. The matter was remanded with additional instructions for the trial court to determine whether any conflicts of interest existed within the proposed class and whether any potential inefficiencies existed that would render class certification inappropriate–two issues that could only be resolved after the court settled on one definition of the class.

Summary from the North Carolina Reports digest (official subject index). Read the opinion →