holding that “any analysis of the limitations defense at the class-certification stage is a merits determination, and, therefore, inappropriate”
How later courts described this case
- holding that “any analysis of the limitations defense at the class-certification stage is a merits determination, and, therefore, inappropriate”
- holding after a review of the trial court’s well-reasoned twenty-four-page order that a class action was properly certified
- proposed class to consist of purchasers of UAC stock after first and second offerings; approximately 1,841 investors
- “The avoidance of a multitude of suits lies at the heart of any class action certification.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
RAY THORNTON, Justice, dissenting. I am concerned that the court has opened the door to class actions without requiring the careful analysis that should be given before certification. The court once held that “with regard to Rule 23 motions, we have specifically stated that we will follow the federal rules in class actions” Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. v. Farm Bureau Policy Holders, 323 Ark. 206 , 918 S.W.2d 129 (1996). However, we have eliminated the requirement under federal rules that there must be a rigorous analysis for certification as oudined in General Telephone Company of South West v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (1982). See Mega Life & Health Ins. Co. v. Jacola, 330 Ark. 261 , 954 S.W.2d 898 (1997).
In my view, we are approaching the point that class actions have been so extended that they elevate efficiency over legal principles. While I respectfully dissent from the direction the majority is taking, I recognize that the grounds for my dissent are being eroded by the cases we have recently decided. I respectfully dissent.