Cullen v. State Farm – The Ohio Supreme Court Returns To Rule 23 Issues

On November 5, 2013, the Supreme Court of Ohio adopted the class certification principles announced in the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes and Comcast v. Behrend. In Cullen v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. , __ Ohio St.3d __, 2013-Ohio-4733, the Ohio high court held that courts must base class-certification decisions on evidence, not merely on a plaintiff's allegations, and established that the standards applicable to evaluating the propriety of class certification in federal courts also apply under the Ohio rules.

Although Cullen was not an employment case, its impact will be felt in employment cases statewide and will likely influence decisions in employment elsewhere. The Cullen ruling amplifies the court's opinion in Stammco v. United Telephone Co. of Ohio, 136 Ohio St.3d 231, 2013-Ohio-309. The Stammco opinion was discussed here in a July 19, 2013 blog article. Together, Cullen and Stammco align Ohio law with the more exacting federal standards for class certification and mark a significant victory for class defendants throughout the state, regardless of the area of law involved.

In Cullen, the Ohio Supreme Court reversed the trial and appellate courts' decisions certifying a class, holding that both lower courts erred by failing to apply a "rigorous analysis" of the Civil Rule 23 requirements. As the opinion reiterated, a "rigorous analysis" must consider the evidence relevant to the Rule 23 factors even if that evidence also bears upon the underlying merits. Accordingly, the Court held that the trial and appellate courts erred by assuming that the plaintiff's theory of the case was accurate, rather than examining the relevant evidence.

Further, the Court rejected the plaintiff's proposed Rule 23(B)(2) (the Ohio counterpart to federal Rule 23(b)(2)), injunctive-relief class, for two reasons: first, because monetary damages were not merely incidental to the declaratory relief sought; and second, because prospective relief would not benefit all class members. The Court thus held that Ohio courts cannot certify Rule 23(B)(2) classes seeking declaratory relief intended merely to lay a foundation for subsequent individual determinations of liability.

Additionally, the Cullen Court ratcheted up the standard of proof required to certify a class. While it did not expressly require a Daubert analysis of expert opinions offered to support class certification, the Court implicitly approved of and...