Issue

Class certification—conflict between class definition and court's analysis—ascertainability

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 (entered on remand from a prior appeal) was vacated where the court defined the class to include people who received the flyer, called the promotional hotline number shown on the flyer, and then visited the dealership to claim their prize. This definition conflicted with the court's analysis, wherein the court found that one of the named plaintiffs did not call the hotline–rather, her grandmother did–but nevertheless allowed her to remain a named plaintiff representing the class; in turn, this inconsistency prevented meaningful appellate review. Additionally, the proposed class was not ascertainable where there were no records identifying which of the 2,118 people who called the hotline number were among the 927 who also visited the dealership during the promotional period.

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