Where doubts about a named plaintiff in a class action threaten the interests of the rest of the class, it was error to certify the class.
“The record raises serious doubts concerning the truthfulness of Pezl’s testimony about his familiarity with the terms of the contract with the Blue Book. The district court erred in treating the subject as immaterial; express consent to communications by fax and email from Blue Book subscribers raises a substantial question. The contractual ‘consent’ to communications among a community of businesses involved in the construction industry seems to have no point other than to provide the consent required by this federal law and perhaps similar state laws. The credibility problem and the consent defense are vital in assessing CE Design’s adequacy as a class representative. We conclude that, as in In re Schering Plough Corp. ERISA Litigation, supra, 589 F.3d at 600, and Beck v. Maximus, Inc., 457 F.3d 291, 300 (3d Cir. 2006), the district court must reconsider its ruling that the named plaintiff is a proper class representative.”
Vacated and Remanded.
10-8050 CE Design Limited v. King Architectural Metals, Inc.
Petition for Permission to Appeal, and Appeal, from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Bucklo, J., Posner, J.