Anthony M. Frazier v. Castle Ford, Ltd., f/k/a ... - Maryland Courts

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$C:\Documents and Settings\thomast\Local Settings\Temp\c.lotus ...$

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 93 September Term, 2011 ANTHONY M. FRAZIER v. CASTLE FORD, LTD., F/K/A CRYSTAL FORD ISUZU, LTD. Bell, C.J. Harrell Battaglia Greene Adkins Barbera McDonald, JJ. Opinion by McDonald, J. Harrell and Battaglia, JJ., dissent. Filed: January 24, 2013
<strong>Maryland</strong> Rule 2-231 allows a plaintiff to prosecute a civil action on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons. In order to do so, the prospective “class representative” must demonstrate that the class members and the claims asserted on their behalf satisfy certain criteria set forth in the rule and that the prospective class representative will “fairly and adequately” represent the class. The circuit court in which the complaint is filed is to determine whether those criteria are met and whether to “certify” the case as a class action “as soon as practicable after commencement of the action.” In this case, we are asked to decide the consequences when a plaintiff seeks to prosecute a case as a class action and the defendant tenders individual compensatory relief to the plaintiff – prior to any determination whether the case may appropriately be brought as a class action. In particular, the following three questions are before us: 1 - Does the tender require the court to deny class certification? 2 - Is an award of punitive damages foreclosed by the tender of individual compensatory damages? 3 - Is an award of attorney’s fees to the plaintiff under a fee-shifting provision of the Consumer Protection Act limited to fees incurred before the tender? For the reasons that follow, we answer each of these questions “no.”
Page 1: Anthony M. Frazier v. Castle Ford,
Page 5 and 6: of the car even though the applicat
Page 7 and 8: far as this court can see to put fo
Page 9 and 10: e joined as parties to the action.
Page 11 and 12: “Picking off” the Prospective C
Page 13 and 14: precluded certification of this act
Page 15 and 16: merits of class certification. 15 I
Page 17 and 18: when a defendant attempts to pick o
Page 19 and 20: opportunity to file a timely motion
Page 22 and 23: Whether an Award of Attorney’s Fe
Page 24 and 25: it undertook significant measures t
Page 26 and 27: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL AP
Page 28 and 29: The majority has developed a paradi
Page 30 and 31: The Seventh Circuit agreed. In so h
Page 32 and 33: The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holdi
Page 34 and 35: FRAZIER’S COUNSEL: Yes. In analyz
Page 36 and 37: was able to take immediate possessi
Page 38 and 39: endered moot by post-suit tender of
Page 40 and 41: on a motion for class certification

Anthony M. Frazier v. Castle Ford, Ltd., f/k/a ... - Maryland Courts

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

Delete template?

Save as template?