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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Differing factual circumstances also arise by virtue of the independent management of the two stores, each having separate practices and personnel in management of their sales. Minnesota Courts have recognized that consolidation issues are similar to class certification issues. Green v. Citv of Coon Ranids, 485 N.W.2d 712 (Minn. App. 1992) (denial of motion to consolidate based on same grounds as denial of motion for class certification).3 Courts have routinely recognized that claims based substantially on oral rather than written misrepresentations cannot be maintained as a class action. Simon v. Merrill Lvnch. Pierce. Fenner & Smith, Inc., 482 F.2d 880,882-83 (5th Cir.1973); Dirks v. Clavton Brokerage Co. of St. Louis. Inc., 105 F.R.D. 125 (D. Minn. 1985); McMertv v. Burtness, 72 F.R.D. 450 (D. Minn. 1976); Stevens v. Woodstock, 372 F.Supp. 654,656-57 (N.D.Il1.1974): FRCP 23, Advisory Committee’s Official Note (“[A] fraud case may be unsuited for treatment as a class action if there [is] material variation in the representations made or in the kinds or degrees of reliance by the persons to whom they were addressed.“). The lead case of Simon v. Merrill Lvnch. Pierce, Fenner & Smith. Inc., 482 F.2d 880, 882-83 (5th Cir.1973) involved a common law fraud claim relating to the sale of securities. The plaintiffs alleged they were induced to purchase securities based on both oral and written misrepresentations. The Fifth Circuit concluded that oral misrepresentation claims do not involve common issues of fact. According to the Court, oral misrepresentation claims necessarily involve a “material variation in the representations made or in the degree of reliance thereupon . . .” Id. The Federal District Court for the District of Minnesota specifically ado the Simon Tz Court’s reasoning in McMertv v. Burtness, 72 F.R.D. 450 (D. Minn. 1976). McMertv involved 3The underlying class action lawsuit was settled before a class certification motion was heard or decided. l -
Page 1 and 2: Hand Delivered Frederick Grittner C
Page 3 and 4: agreement. The two individuals alle
Page 5 and 6: were heard and considered in Dakota
Page 7: In a case directly on point, the Mi
Page 11 and 12: A. The Number of Parties. The mere
Page 13 and 14: of the settlement and missed the de
Page 15 and 16: OFFICE OF APPEi..LbiTE COURTS STATE
Page 17 and 18: e , 14. Attached hereto as Exhibit
Page 19 and 20: * . : , : 4. . s . Mr. Unger June 2
Page 21 and 22: 3 3 I I July 6,200O Michael W. Unge
Page 23 and 24: ‘August 7,200O Michael W. Unger R
Page 25 and 26: nr,uI,ac,, . . 1 APlcinarmlLlmlIed~
Page 27 and 28: RIDERBENNETT EGAN&.ARUNDEL . Edwin
Page 29 and 30: W”. --. -1-.* - - -- _~ . . I.1 *
Page 31 and 32: 3a be’.:. File NO. U-00-012649 3
Page 33 and 34: James ‘D. Kinncv Condcnsclt’M I
Page 35 and 36: . James D. Kinncv CondenseItTM DEPO
Page 37 and 38: ,JamcsD. Kinney CondenseIt’” DE
Page 39 and 40: I . r James D. Kinney Page 33 1 by
Page 41 and 42: I James D. Kinney CondcnseItTM DEPO
Page 43 and 44: . ‘Tmamc 1. Carter Condcnsclt’M
Page 45 and 46: 0 Tcrrancc J. Carter Condcnscl t l
Page 47 and 48: . , Tcrrancc J. Carter Page 17 I A.
Page 49 and 50: . Tcrrancc J. Carter Condcnsclt IM
Page 51 and 52: Terrance J. Carter Condcnscl t IM P
Page 53 and 54: Tcrrancc J. Caticr Condcnsclt.“M
Page 55 and 56: 1 .sell to the third guy for the sa
Page 57 and 58: . Tcrrancc J. Carter Condcnscl t IH
Page 59 and 60:
xmncc J. Carter hike. Q. Boll 1 lan
Page 61 and 62:
xrance J. Carter I (TEKKANC’E JOH
Page 63 and 64:
. Daniel M. Lund / ---- I .4PYEAIlA
Page 65 and 66:
* 9 thnicl M. Lund I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Page 67 and 68:
. I Daniel M. Lund Condensclt’M D
Page 69 and 70:
L Daniel M. Lund Condcnsclt’M DEP
Page 71 and 72:
. , aniel M. Lund Conde Page 33 I a
Page 73 and 74:
. . , Danicl M. Lund Condcn.sclt’
Page 75 and 76:
\ Z ’ Daniel M. Lund Condenselt
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?