CHARLESTON — The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals ruled that a lower court exceeded its powers when it certified a class while failing to thoroughly analyze before it making that determination.
The court granted a writ of prohibition as moulded in the case.
"For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the circuit court has exceeded its legitimate powers by certifying the class while failing to undertake a thorough analysis in its determination of whether the class certification requirements of Rule 23 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure were satisfied," Justice Evan Jenkins wrote for the majority.
Justice John Hutchison concurred in the opinion and Justice Margaret Workman dissented. They both filed separate opinions.
The matter was before the court on a writ of prohibition in which Wood Circuit Judge Thomas A. Bedell certified a class action against Surnaik Holdings of WV.
The circuit court named Paul Snider as class representative in the case.
Surnaik argued that the circuit court clearly erred in certifying the class and asked the state Supreme Court to prohibit the circuit court from conducting any further proceedings in the case until the circuit court vacated the class certification order.
"Based upon the record before us, the arguments of the parties, and the applicable law, we find that the circuit court exceeded its jurisdiction by failing to conduct an appropriate and thorough analysis of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b) class certification requirements," Jenkins wrote.
The court vacated the circuit court’s order certifying the class action.
In 2017, a fire erupted at a Surnaik warehouse in Parkersburg and it burned for eight days. Snider alleged that the plume of smoke that was emitted from the fire adversely impacted neighboring properties and filed a lawsuit on behalf of a class of others who were impacted like he was.
In 2019, Snider filed a motion for class certification and Surnaik responded to the motion, arguing that the class certification was not appropriate because a significant number of the class members were not injured.
The circuit court granted the class certification and Surnaik filed an instant petition to prohibit the class certification order being enforced.
In his concurring opinion, Hutchison wrote that he chose to write a separate opinion because the majority failed to carefully explain the predominance and superiority requirements of Rule 23(b)(3).
"In this case, it is fair to say that the plaintiff’s counsel did not make a detailed showing, and so the circuit court made perfunctory findings, about predominance and superiority," Hutchison wrote. "When this case returns to the circuit court, this Court expects the circuit court to hold the parties’ feet to the fire. In sum, the trial judge has to explain that a class action will achieve true efficiency, true economy, and a lot of judicial bang for the buck before a class action can be certified under Rule 23(b)(3)."
In her dissenting opinion, Workman wrote that the majority was wrong.
"The majority opinion is flatly wrong in its analysis of the facts, creates unnecessary delay in this case, and portends a sea change in our approach to class action cases – a change for the worse," Workman wrote.
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals case number: 19-1006
