Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Florida Court Reverses Class Certification Order Based On Outdated Definition Of Unfair Trade Practice

June 18, 2014 by D. Matthew Allen and Jaret J. Fuente

Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal reversed an order certifying a class of Porsche vehicle owners who had their high intensity discharge headlights stolen during the class period.  The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant acted unfairly by distributing a product highly susceptible to theft without taking remedial steps such as notifying owners of the potential risk, in violation of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act “(FDUTPA”).

The trial court certified a class and two subclasses using the definition of an “unfair” trade practice derived from a 1964 Federal Trade Commission policy statement.  Under that definition, a practice is “unfair” if it “offends established policy” and “is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to customers.”  Relying in large part on a Southern District of Florida class certification decision, In re Motions to Certify Classes Against Court Reporting Firms for Charges Relating to Word Indices, 715 F. Supp. 2d 1265 (S.D. Fla. 2010), aff’d sub nom. Webber v. Esquire Deposition Services, LLC, 439 Fed. Appx. 849 (11thCir. 2011), the Third District held that this was error because in 1980, the FTC updated its definition to establish a three-pronged test for “unfairness,” which requires that the injury to the consumer be substantial, that it not be outweighed by any countervailing benefits to consumers, and that it be one that consumers themselves could not reasonably have avoided, and because Florida adopted that definition specifically with regard to FDUTPA.

Using the old definition, the trial court had ruled that an individual class member’s pre-purchase knowledge of the potential risk of theft was not relevant to the class FDUTPA claims and that common issues would predominate over individual issues because the defendant’s actions would be unfair to all class members or not unfair to any of them.  Applying the correct definition, the Third District held that individual class members’ knowledge of the risk of headlight theft was relevant to whether the defendant’s practice was unfair because it impacted whether the consumer could reasonably avoid the risk.  Consumers who lived in a high crime area could have chosen Porsche models with different, less attractive headlights, taken efforts to park in safe areas, installed car alarms extending to the headlight mounting module, or declined to buy or lease a Porsche with the high intensity discharge headlights.  In these circumstances, where “the individual knowledge and experience of the consumer is an important element of the cause of action” and defenses, “there can be no class-wide proof that injury was not reasonably avoidable.”

This decision has the potential to be an important arrow in a defendant’s quiver when facing a FDUTPA class action in Florida.  It illustrates the importance of exploring whether class members’ individual knowledge and experience is significant to the cause of action or defenses.  If so, as in this case, no class should be certified.

Note:  Carlton Fields was counsel of record for one of the three defendants inCourt Reporting Firms.

Porsche Cars North America, Inc. v. Diamond, No. 3D12-2829 (Fla. 3d DCA June 11, 2014).

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

Preemptive Strike Terminates Nationwide Product Defect Class In Louisiana

Next Article »

Amended Class Definition That Excludes Putative Class Member Does Not Preclude American Pipe Tolling
D. Matthew Allen

About D. Matthew Allen

Matt Allen is a shareholder at Carlton Fields in Tampa, Florida.

Jaret J. Fuente

About Jaret J. Fuente

Jaret Fuente is a shareholder at Carlton Fields in Tampa, Florida. Connect with Jaret on LinkedIn.

Get Weekly Updates!

2020 Class Action Survey – Now Available!

DOWNLOAD NOW
Carlton Fields Logo A blog focused on the latest class action developments and trends by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Search

Topics

Industries/Practices
  • Construction
  • Consumer Finance & Banking
  • Food & Beverage
  • Health Care
  • Insurance
  • Labor, Employment & ERISA
  • Manufacturing & Products
  • Pharmaceutical
  • Privacy & Technology
  • Securities
  • Telecommunications

Substantive/Procedural
  • Arbitration
  • CAFA
  • Certification
    • Adequacy
    • Ascertainability
    • Commonality
    • Numerosity
    • Predominance
    • Superiority
    • Typicality
  • Decertification
  • Settlements
  • Standing
  • Striking of Class Allegations

Courts/Jurisdiction
  • Federal District Courts
  • Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal
  • United States Supreme Court
  • State Courts

Monthly Archives

Recent Articles

  • MDL Court Denies Class Certification of Proposed “NAS Babies” Class
  • What’s Good for Trial Is Good for Class Certification: Fifth Circuit Rules That Daubert Applies at Class Certification Stage
  • One Game, One Stadium: Eleventh Circuit Spikes Collateral Challenge to Tampa Bay Buccaneers Proposed Class Action Settlement

Get Weekly Updates!

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • Class Action Survey

Related Industries/Practices

  • National Class Actions
  • National Trial Practice
  • Appellate & Trial Support
  • Our Class Action Experience

Classified: The Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact

Classified Logo
© 2014–2021 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.