2001-01-26 Harley-Davidson Response - Minnesota Judicial Branch

all the claims on the grounds that the claims involved a common question of fact - the mothers’
ingestion of DES. The court properly rejected consolidation due to the fact that each claim
involved independent and unique issues of fact. The Court recognized that allowing claimants to
bolster their case by parading numerous claimant’s before the jury would be prejudicial to the
defendant. The court reasoned as follows:
One could scarcely imagine actions less amenable to consolidation in a
single suit than the myriad suits which have been brought before this court for
redress of DES-related injuries.
While the minimum statutory requirement of “a common question of law or
fact,” may be satisfied by the common thread of DES ingestion whi6h runs through
every case, the particular circumstances surrounding each mother’s use of the drug,
and each daughter’s complaints arising from that use, are so diverse as to render
consolidation impractical. Where “individu& issues predominate”, consolidation,
even for the purpose of joint trial, is not wise. This has been recognized in cases
involving as few as two plaintiffs, or even one plaintiff involved in two separate
accidents. Presentation of the numerous plaintiffs’ claims before a single jury
would also tend to unfairly bolster the case against the defendants in an
impermissibly prejudicial manner. Consolidation is, therefore, clearly unavailable.
Id. at 43 1-432.
In the present case, the particular circumstances surrounding each claimant’s transaction
with Twin Cities Harley Davidson are so diverse as to render consolidation prejudicial and
impractical. The claims asserted by the petitioners in the present case are based on alleged oral
representations by different Twin Cities Harley-Davidson salespeople, at different times, and at
separately managed locations. Each of these allegations necessarily hinges upon an independent,
individualized, factual determination of what each claimant was told, and by whom. Moreover, to
sustain a misrepresentation claim, a plaintiff must be able to establish that she rea Ia nably relied on
the supposed misrepresentation. This necessarily involves an independent tid individualized
factual determination into each claimant’s background, experience, education, training, etc.
7