Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Western District of Missouri Declines to Deliver Certification in Class Action Based on Alleged Newspaper Subscription Overcharges

August 10, 2015 by David L. Luck

The Western District of Missouri denied class certification in an action alleging three regional newspapers—the Kansas City Star, the Fort Worth Star Telegram, and the Belleville News-Democrat—unlawfully double billed some of their subscribers by shortening the length of their subscriptions. The named plaintiffs, subscribers to the Kansas City Star only, alleged that without providing proper notice, the newspapers deducted additional charges for special or premium editions of the newspapers, which resulted in overcharges and shortened subscription periods. They alleged contract-based claims and violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA), but also argued the billing practice violated the consumer-protection laws of the other states as well.

The district court denied certification for several reasons. First, one of the representative plaintiffs was plaintiffs’ counsel’s brother, which the court concluded created an untenable conflict of interest because a sibling cannot reasonably be expected to remain neutral between the interests of the class he seeks to represent and his brother/counsel.

Second, as to the remaining representative plaintiffs (a couple who shared one account subscription to the Kansas City Star), typicality, commonality, and predominance were lacking for at least two reasons:

(a) The subscription forms and practices varied materially among the three papers, and these plaintiffs subscribed only to the Kansas City Star. Thus, they could not represent subscribers of the other papers. “Evidentiary variables include: the paper the class member subscribed to, when and how the class member subscribed, the exact language used in the initial agreement, whether and how the subscription was renewed, and the exact language used to renew the agreement.”

(b) Even among Kansas City Star subscribers, all of the same individualized inquiries would remain, except for the specific paper to which the putative class members subscribed. “Even if Plaintiff proposed certifying a class of only Missouri residents who subscribed to the Kansas City Star, issues of law or fact common to the class would still not predominate over individual issues. Although the fact-finder would not have to inquire about which paper the class member subscribed to, the evidence used to answer the remaining questions would still be different for each class member.”

Finally, the court relied on a decision recently discussed on Classified: The Class Action Blog, Perras v. H&R Block, No. 14-2892, — F.3d —, 2015 WL 3775418 (8th Cir. June 18, 2015), for the proposition that “common questions of law d[o] not predominate over any individual questions in [a] class action which would have to be brought under multiple states consumer-protection statutes.” Thus, by attempting to raise class-wide claims concerning consumers of multiple states, the plaintiffs destroyed commonality and predominance because the distinct consumer-protection act of each state would cover the claims of its consumers. Not all claims would be governed by the MMPA.

O’Shaughnessy v. Cypress Media, LLC, No. 4:13-cv-0947-DGK (W.D. Mo. July 13, 2015).

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

Rice Capades: Court Certifies a Class of Lead Lawyers Against Defendant Law Firms Who Allegedly Used the Class’s Work Product in Rice Litigation

Next Article »

Seventh Circuit Applies “Weak” Ascertainability Requirement, Splits From Third and Eleventh Circuits
Avatar

About David L. Luck

Related Articles

  1. GCs facing more bet-the-company and higher exposure class actions
  2. 2016 Carlton Fields Class Action Survey Reveals Important Trends in Class Action Management
  3. TCPA Class Certified Based Largely on “Concrete Injury” Determination

Get Weekly Updates!

2019 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

  • Class Action Survey: What Percentage of Class Action Lawsuits Are Settled? When do Most Settlements Occur?
  • Class Action Survey: True or False? The Amount of Time In-House Attorneys Spent Managing Class Actions Has Increased.
  • No Speaking? No Standing!

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
© 2014–2019 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.