## Facts

- Alabama, its Superintendent of Education, and a county board sued school bus–body manufacturers and Alabama distributors under the Sherman Act, alleging a conspiracy to fix prices and monopolize sales to governmental purchasers.
- Plaintiffs sought Rule 23(b)(3) damages certification for two classes of governmental entities that purchased school bus bodies from defendants:
  - an Alabama-only class of governmental purchasers in Alabama; and
  - a nationwide class of governmental purchasers throughout the United States, excluding Georgia.
- The alleged conspiracy was characterized as nationwide, but proving liability and impact would require analysis of purchasing and pricing across many states and purchasers over time.
- The district court certified both classes and adopted a trial plan that would try common liability issues in one proceeding in Alabama, then conduct individualized damages proceedings for class members in numerous other courts, including by severance and transfer.

## Issues

1. Whether certification of a nationwide Rule 23(b)(3) damages class satisfied predominance and superiority, given the expected need for state-by-state and purchaser-specific proof of antitrust impact and damages.
2. Whether certification of an Alabama-only Rule 23(b)(3) damages class satisfied predominance and superiority.
3. Whether the district court’s plan to try nationwide liability centrally and then sever, bifurcate, and transfer individualized damages proceedings to many other courts was permissible and manageable under Rule 23(b)(3) and related transfer authority.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit reversed certification of the nationwide class.
- The court held that individualized inquiries—especially as to antitrust impact—would overwhelm common issues for the nationwide class, defeating Rule 23(b)(3) predominance.
- The court further held that the proposed fragmented trial plan rendered the nationwide class action unmanageable and not superior to other methods of adjudication.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed certification of the Alabama-only class, concluding that common issues predominated and the case could be managed in a single forum.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings limited to the Alabama class, with potential refinement through subclasses or issue treatment if appropriate.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 23(b)(3) predominance is not met where key antitrust elements—particularly impact and damages—require extensive purchaser-by-purchaser or state-by-state proof.
- Rule 23(b)(3) superiority and manageability require a realistic trial plan; a class is not superior if it depends on massive individualized proceedings and speculative coordination among many courts.
- Rule 23(c)(4) may be used to structure classes through issue treatment or subclasses, but it cannot cure a fundamental failure of predominance or manageability in a proposed nationwide damages class.
- Geographically limited purchaser classes are more likely to satisfy predominance and superiority when the relevant market and purchasing practices are sufficiently uniform to permit common proof.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit rejected a nationwide governmental-purchaser antitrust damages class because individualized proof of impact and an unworkable, fragmented trial plan defeated Rule 23(b)(3) predominance and superiority, but allowed the case to proceed as an Alabama-only class action.


Alabama v. Blue Bird Body Co., 573 F.2d 309 (5th Cir. 1978)