ST. LOUIS — The Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District has affirmed in part and reversed in part a trial court’s decision to certify a class in a lawsuit filed by Temujin Kensu against Keefe Commissary Network LLC over allegations of deceptive practices in its SecureMedia MP3 program.
Keefe Commissary is doing business as Access Corrections.
The appellate court upheld the class certification on several claims but ruled that the class definition crafted by the trial court was improperly framed and must be revised, according to the Aug. 26 opinion.
The decision was handed down by Judges Robert M. Clayton III, Lisa P. Page and Michael E. Gardner.
Kensu filed a ten-count petition individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, alleging breach of contract, violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA), and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing related to Keefe Commissary’s MP3 program, which provided prisoners the ability to purchase music players and digital music files.
He initially sought class certification, which was denied, but a second motion for class certification was granted in part by the trial court. The court certified the class for three count, breach of contract, violation of the MMPA and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, while denying certification on the remaining claims.
Keefe Commissary petitioned for permission to appeal the certification, which the appellate court granted.
On appeal, Keefe Commissary raised three points of error. It argued first that Kensu failed to meet the evidentiary burden to show that any class claims existed, second that the certified class exceeded the applicable statutes of limitation, and third that the trial court improperly included determinations of the merits of the case in its sua sponte class definition.
The legal term sua sponte describes actions a judge takes on his own initiative, without a request from the parties involved in a lawsuit. These actions can include dismissing a case, correcting legal errors or voiding a contract to ensure fairness and adherence to the law.
The appellate court reviewed the case under an abuse of discretion standard, which allows reversal only if a ruling is arbitrary or unreasonable to the point of shocking the sense of justice.
In rejecting Keefe Commissary’s first argument, the court found that Kensu’s petition contained sufficient allegations to establish each element required for class certification, including that participation in the MP3 program constituted a contract between the company and the purported class members.
The court noted that class certification is generally determined based on allegations in the petition and does not require a full presentation of evidence or determination of the merits at this stage.
“The petition sufficiently alleges each element required for class certification under Rule 52.08,” the court stated, finding no abuse of discretion by the trial court in this regard.
However, the appellate court agreed with both parties that the trial court’s sua sponte class definition improperly required determinations of the merits to ascertain membership.
The definition included terms such as “improperly denied warranty coverage” and “unauthorized removal” of music files, which would necessitate a legal conclusion about liability before determining whether an individual belonged to the class.
This, the court ruled, was not permissible. Citing prior case law, the judges noted that including merit determinations in class definitions is problematic because such findings are not accompanied by the traditional rules and procedures applicable to civil trials.
As a result, the appellate court reversed the class definition portion of the trial court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings to eliminate the improper language while affirming the overall class certification.
Kensu had argued that the definition should not be abandoned but revised, a position the appellate court deemed consistent with its ruling that the trial court should serve as the arbiter of removing the improper phrases.
Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District case number: ED113320
