Insight

Class Actions in a State of Undress

Published on: April 4, 2013

Almost no litigation grabs attention and headlines more than a high-profile class action. The Louisiana Supreme Court's recent class action ruling was no exception in a case involving salacious conduct and a violation of privacy.

The plaintiff in Jane Doe v. Southern Gyms, LLC, 2012-1566 (La. 3/19/13) was an unnamed victim of a "peeping tom." She contended that an employee of a popular gym placed a pen camera in the women's bathroom where he would tape unsuspecting women in various states of undress. The pen camera could hold only 1-2 hours of film. The perpetrator testified that, after viewing, he would immediately delete the footage. The images of only four women were seen on the footage when it was discovered. After the employee was arrested, one of the victims filed the class action lawsuit. At issue before the Louisiana Supreme Court was whether the class action was properly certified by the Trial Court.

Class action is a nontraditional litigation procedure that was introduced into Louisiana civil procedure in 1961. Louisiana class action procedure is modeled after the original federal rule and has been extensively revised since its inception. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 591 provides the elements that must be met before a class action can be certified. Failure to meet one of the threshold requirements of Article 591 precludes class action treatment. Once of these threshold requirements is numerosity, i.e. a class of potential plaintiffs "so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical." La. C.C.P. art. 591(a)(1). The requirement of numerosity was at issue in Jane Doe.

In its analysis, the Supreme Court stressed that courts must perform a rigorous analysis to determine whether the proposed class action meets the requirements of Article 591. Simply pleading a class action is insufficient. Instead, the plaintiff "must be prepared to prove in fact" that the Article 591 requirements are met. Id. at p. 9. To establish the "numerosity" requirement, the class representative cannot simply allege that several persons were affected by the defendant's bad acts. She must be able to offer some proof of a definable group of aggrieved persons so numerous that joinder is impractical.

In Jane Doe, the Supreme Court held that the plaintiff did not satisfy numerosity. The employee's testimony revealed that he may have recorded approximately 20 women. However, because the footage was deleted, most of the potential class members could not show that their privacy had been violated. Only nine women had positive knowledge that they were on video. According to the Jane Doe Court, nine class members did not meet the numerosity requirement and the class was decertified. While the Court did not reveal a "magic number" to meet numerosity, we now know it may be higher than nine.

There is an old adage that "bad facts make bad law." In Jane Doe, the Louisiana Supreme Court did not let the egregious nature of the conduct impact its view that the requirements of Article 591 must be met in every circumstance.

Posted by:

Disclaimer

Keogh Cox & Wilson, Ltd. provides this blog as a public service for general information only. The materials contained herein may not reflect the most current legal developments or even express the opinion of all or even most of Keogh Cox attorneys. Such material does not constitute legal advice or form any attorney-client relationship. Keogh Cox and all contributing author(s) expressly disclaim all liability to any person with respect to the contents of this Web site and Blog and expect that no reliance will be made upon the information provided.

Continue Reading

Explore legal perspectives on the issues shaping Louisiana's key industries and courtrooms.

Insight

Louisiana Supreme Court Revisits How General Damage Awards Are Reviewed on Appeal

In Barber Brothers Contracting Company, LLC v. Capitol City Produce Company, LLC, the Louisiana Supreme Court re-examined how Louisiana courts should review general damage awards. The Court noted its decision also was intended to clarify its prior ruling in in Pete v. Boland Marine & Mfg. Co., which addressed the same issue. To review our prior analysis of the Court’s holding in Pete, click here.

Traditionally, Louisiana has required a two-step analysis for appellate review of a lower court’s damage awards. First, the appellate court must determine whether the trier of fact “abused its discretion” in assessing damages. Courts generally found a damage award abused discretion if it “shocked the conscience,” a standard critics argued was too subjective. Second, and only if the award “shocked the conscience,” courts could consider prior awards to establish the highest or lowest reasonable award.

In Pete, the Court held that courts of appeal should compare verdicts to general damage awards in similar cases during the first step of analysis to determine whether a trial court abused its discretion. This approach suggested general damage awards should not be solely based on the subjective findings of the jury but should be grounded in objective comparisons to other cases. It was thought this also served the purpose of maintaining consistency and reasonableness of damage awards. The Pete decision was seen by many as an attempt to address Louisiana's trend of rising verdicts, which critics argued were contributing to higher insurance premiums in the state.

However, in Barber Bros., the Supreme Court revisited these issues, when it examined a jury verdict that awarded the plaintiff $10.75 million in general damages, $2.5 million to his wife for loss of consortium, and $1.5 million to each of their two children. The jury found the plaintiff sustained extensive physical injuries and a traumatic brain injury, which significantly impacted his personality, lifestyle, and self-image.

Citing Pete, the Louisiana Supreme Court initially reduced the awards to $5 million for the plaintiff, $400,000 for his wife, and $100,000 for each child. However, upon rehearing, the Court reinstated the original general damages award. Citing Pete again, the court clarified how damage awards should be reviewed on appeal as follows: (1) courts should determine whether abuse of discretion occurred by examining the particular facts and circumstances of the case, to include a “consideration of prior awards in similar cases,” and (2) if abuse of discretion is found, “the court is to then also consider those prior awards to determine ‘the highest or lowest point which is reasonably within that discretion.’”

The Court clarified that the consideration of prior awards should be balanced with an examination of the unique facts and circumstances of each case. Considering the facts of Barber Bros., the Court held it did not adequately account for the effects of the plaintiff’s injuries upon initial hearing. While the jury award was “on the high end of the range of reasonable awards,” the court found it was not disproportionate to prior awards and “bore a reasonable relationship” to the evidence presented at trial. Thus, the award did not “shock the conscience” and should not have been adjusted following the initial hearing.

The Barber Bros. decision may be limited to the facts presented in that case. However, the ruling appears to suggest that prior verdicts are only a factor to be weighed against a case’s facts to assess whether a trial court abused its discretion with a general damage award that “shocks the conscience.” While the court did not overturn Pete, the Barber Bros. case appears to re-open the door for damage awards to be based upon more subjective assessments of the jury and not the more objective standards the Pete decision initially appeared to create. It remains to be seen how much weight prior decisions will carry when courts address these issues moving forward.

References:

Barber Brothers Contracting Company, LLC v. Capitol City Produce Company, LLC, 23-788 (La. 12/19/24), 397 So. 3d 404.

Pete v. Boland Marine & Mfg. Co., 23-170 (La. 10/20/23), 379 So. 3d 636, reh'g denied, 23-170 (La. 12/7/23), 374 So. 3d 135.

Insight

Kids and Pets Left in Vehicles: Louisiana Legislature Makes Rescuers Immune, Maybe

Louisiana summers are hot and humid. Suffocating. Temperatures in July and August regularly exceed 100 degrees, but the temperature inside a parked car is even higher. According to the Centers for Disease Control, the inside of a parked car can reach 130 to 172 degrees when the outdoor temperature is between 80 and 100 degrees. Cracking the windows or parking in the shade has little effect. Because it only takes 10 minutes for the interior temperature of a parked vehicle to rise 20 degrees, children and animals left alone for “just a few minutes” are at risk. On average, 37 children and hundreds of pets die of vehicular heat stroke each year. In an effort to address this problem, the Louisiana Legislature recently passed a law to encourage action.The Legislature enacted two statutes to provide immunity from claims of property damage or trespass for any person causing damage to a motor vehicle while rescuing a minor or animal in distress. La. R.S. 37:1738 et seq. provides immunity if the person:

Makes a good-faith attempt to locate the owner before entering the vehicle.
Contacts local law enforcement, the fire department, or calls 911 before entering the vehicle.
Determines that the vehicle is locked and has a good-faith belief that there are no other reasonable means for the minor or animal to be removed from the vehicle.
Believes that removal of the minor or animal from the vehicle is necessary because the minor or animal is in imminent danger of suffering harm.
Uses force that was reasonably necessary under the circumstances to enter the vehicle.
Places a notice on the windshield of the vehicle providing details of the person’s contact information, the reason entry was made, the location of the minor or animal, and notice that the proper authorities have been notified.
Remains with the minor or animal in a safe location reasonably close to the vehicle until emergency responders arrive. If the person cannot remain with the minor or animal, the person must do the following:
For a minor: notify local law enforcement, the fire department, or the 911 operator and take the minor to the closest police station or hospital.
For an animal: notify local law enforcement, the fire department, animal control, or the 911 operator and take the animal to the closest shelter.

One wonders if a person reacting in an emergency will remember to leave a detailed note or to make the call before they act. If they do not, the immunity may be lost because immunity statutes are strictly construed in Louisiana. Also, the immunity does not apply to bodily injuries suffered by a minor during the rescue activities.So, if you see a child or animal in danger in a hot car, the law now allows you to act with immunity, maybe.

Insight

A Presumption of Constitutionality

The Louisiana Supreme Court recently upheld as constitutional two statutes requiring the registration of sex offenders even when applied to a person who was found not guilty by reason of insanity. See State of Louisiana v. Isaiah Overstreet, Jr., 12 - 1854 (La. 3/19/13). While an ultimate resolution of this issue would cause the Court to measure the asserted personal interests of the defendant against the public's interest in safety, the defendant's challenges were rejected because he failed to properly raise and brief the constitutional issues.

In Overstreet, it was factually established that the defendant attempted to force himself upon co-eds at two universities. After his arrest, he was diagnosed as schizophrenic and consistently denied any recollection of the crimes. Overstreet was found not guilty by reason of insanity and continued in state-run mental facilities for over a decade until filing a Motion to be Released in 2010. The motion was denied as a consequence of his refusal to participate in sex offender treatment.

When he inquired about the potential release to a group home, he was advised that he would have to register as a sex offender. He then moved to declare LSA-R.S. 15:541(7) and 15:542 (the sex offender registration statutes) unconstitutional.

The Trial Court struck down the statutes as an affront to the Louisiana Constitution, giving conflicting oral and written reasons in support of the ruling. The Trial Court later explained in a per curiam opinion that the primary concern is one of capacity and that it would be unjust to require registration from one lacking capacity to do so.

At the Supreme Court, the defense attorney argued that an application of the registration statutes to Overstreet would violate due process and equal protection because he had not been convicted as a sex offender. In response, the State argued that a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity is not equivalent to an acquittal and that the registration statutes are not punitive but instead are designed to protect the public. The State contended that the defendant was a "sex offender" irrespective of the not guilty by reason of insanity defense.

The Louisiana Supreme Court did not address the merits of these positions. Instead, the Court held that the defendant had not sufficiently particularized the grounds for a constitutional challenge. The Court reasoned that legislation is presumed constitutional. As a result, if a party desires to challenge the constitutionality of a statute, that party must raise the unconstitutionality and specifically plead the basis of the alleged unconstitutionality.

The Overstreet Court reversed the Trial Court because it is the challenger's duty to sufficiently raise the constitutional objections. In so doing, the Court disregarded the Trial Court's sua sponte ruling ("on its own motion") that the sex offender registration statutes were unconstitutional because the Trial Court did not have the authority to raise these challenges.

While Overstreet did not resolve the ultimate issues of the constitutionality of the sex offender statutes in this setting, it did define the issues which would likely guide its decision should the issue ever be properly raised before the Court.