Virginia Lawyers Weekly VA Lawyers Weekly
Where the court previously held that a woman alleging defendants misrepresented the horsepower capabilities of their treadmills that were sold for household exercise had standing to pursue claims related to treadmills that she did not purchase, and that the jurisdictional requirements of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, or MMWA, need not be satisfied if the jurisdictional requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act, or CAFA, are satisfied, it refused to certify this ruling for immediate interlocutory appeal.
Background
This putative class action alleges that defendants misrepresented the horsepower capabilities of their treadmills that were sold for household exercise. On Jan. 31, 2023, the court issued a memorandum opinion and order granting in part and denying in part defendants’ motion to dismiss.
As relevant here, the court held that the plaintiff had standing to pursue claims related to treadmills that she did not purchase, and that the jurisdictional requirements of the MMWA need not be satisfied if the jurisdictional requirements of the CAFA are satisfied. Before the court is defendants’ motion for certification of an interlocutory appeal on these two issues.
Analysis
A district court may exercise its discretion to certify an order for interlocutory appeal where (1) the order involves a controlling question of law, (2) there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and (3) an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.
Regarding the first requirement, the parties do not dispute that resolution of the standing issue or the MMWA jurisdiction issue, one way or another, will not be dispositive of this litigation. Even if the court of appeals were to find that plaintiff did not have standing to pursue claims on behalf of substantially similar Horizon treadmills, the class claims would still proceed with respect to the model purchased by the plaintiff. Also, even if the court of appeals were to find that the court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the MMWA claims, that would only eliminate two of the seven claims in this case.
Defendants argue that the issues are controlling, even though their resolution “would not completely end the litigation altogether,” because an immediate appeal would be “‘serious to the conduct of the litigation, either practically or legally.’” An issue can be controlling if its resolution would “substantially shorten the litigation.” If the court of appeals reversed the court’s decision on the CAFA and MMWA jurisdictional issue, those claims would have to be dismissed or an additional 99 plaintiffs would have to be named. If the court of appeals reversed the court’s decision on the standing issue, potential class members would be limited to purchasers of one treadmill.
In this context, however, the court finds that the standing and MMWA jurisdiction issues are not controlling. Class action certification is not an issue presented by the court’s ruling on defendants’ motion to dismiss. Defendants will still be facing class claims if the court’s standing and MMWA jurisdiction rulings were both reversed. Moreover, additional plaintiffs could intervene to solve either issue.
In addition, as to whether an immediate appeal would materially advance the outcome of the litigation, “[t]he mere fact that its resolution at this time may save pre-trial and trial effort and expense is not determinative; that of course can be said of any interlocutory appeal.” As discussed above, a successful appeal by defendants on either of the identified issues would not obviate the need for class certification proceedings.
If the court eventually denies class certification, then these issues would become moot. If the court grants class certification, then defendants can attempt to pursue a discretionary appeal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f). Moreover, resolution in favor of the defendants may cause additional pre-trial and trial effort if plaintiff finds it necessary to add additional plaintiffs to cure the standing issue and the subject matter jurisdiction issue on the MMWA claims.
Defendants’ motion for certification of an interlocutory appeal denied.
Prince v. Johnson Health Tech Trading Inc., Case No. 5:22-cv-00035, May 1, 2023. WDVA at Harrisonburg (Dillon). VLW 023-3-236. 7 pp.
