A Not-So-Gentle Reminder That Applying Laws From All 50 States Would Be "Absurd and Clumsy"
The Southern District of Florida explained in no uncertain terms that adjudicating a proposed nationwide class action where the laws of all fifty states would be implicated would be "absurd and clumsy."
In Vega v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 06-CIV-20554, 2007 WL 1364333 (S.D. Fla. May 8, 2007), the court ultimately certified a state-wide class of employees suing T-Mobile for improprieties in the cellular service provider's commission structure. Focusing mainly on the commonality and typicality elements of Rule 23, the court first determined that there was no commonality in the proposed nationwide class because of the differences in the laws of the various states as they related to the contract and unjust enrichment claims--though the court was satisfied that the commonality requirement was met as to the state-wide class.
With regard to typicality, the court determined that the plaintiff's claims were not typical in light of the proposed definition's inclusion of persons whose commissions were withheld. The complaint made no such allegations with regard to the named plaintiff. The court ultimately cut out that language from the class definition and certified the state-wide class.