## Facts

- Pennsylvania cigarette smokers brought a putative class action against multiple tobacco manufacturers, related entities, and industry organizations.
- Plaintiffs alleged defendants’ conduct (including negligence, strict liability, and misrepresentation theories) increased class members’ risk of lung cancer, heart disease, and COPD.
- Plaintiffs did not seek damages for presently manifested disease; they sought classwide medical monitoring in the form of a court-ordered program of periodic diagnostic testing at defendants’ expense.
- The proposed class included roughly one million Pennsylvania adults who allegedly smoked at least one-half pack per day for at least 20 years.
- The action was removed to federal court, where the district court initially conditionally certified a mandatory, non-opt-out class under Rule 23(b)(2).
- On reconsideration, the district court decertified the class, finding individualized inquiries would be required regarding (1) addiction, (2) medical necessity and scope of monitoring, and (3) defenses such as comparative negligence and assumption of risk.
- Plaintiffs appealed the decertification order.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion in decertifying a mandatory Rule 23(b)(2) class seeking medical-monitoring relief for increased risk of disease from smoking.
2. Whether individualized determinations about addiction, need for monitoring, and affirmative defenses defeated the cohesiveness required for Rule 23(b)(2) class treatment.
3. Whether the requested medical-monitoring program, though framed as injunctive relief, functioned as individualized monetary relief making Rule 23(b)(2) certification improper.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s order decertifying the Rule 23(b)(2) class.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the proposed class insufficiently cohesive.
- The court agreed that entitlement to, and contours of, medical monitoring would require individualized proof and medical judgment for each class member.
- The court agreed that comparative negligence and assumption-of-risk defenses would require individualized assessment of each smoker’s knowledge and conduct.
- The court concluded that the medical-monitoring program, as sought, resembled individualized monetary relief and therefore did not fit well within a mandatory, non-opt-out Rule 23(b)(2) class.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 23(b)(2) certification requires a cohesive class for which final injunctive or declaratory relief is appropriate as to the class as a whole.
- Significant individualized issues bearing on entitlement to relief or defenses can defeat Rule 23(b)(2) cohesiveness, even when plaintiffs seek forward-looking relief.
- Courts evaluate the substance of requested relief; relief labeled “injunctive” may be treated as monetary when it entails individualized, person-by-person expenditures and determinations.
- Class certification and decertification decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion, with deference to the district court’s assessment of manageability and the Rule 23 factors.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit upheld decertification of a statewide smoker medical-monitoring class because individualized inquiries into addiction, medical necessity, and defenses prevented the class from being treated as a cohesive unit under Rule 23(b)(2), and because the requested monitoring program operated in substance as individualized monetary relief inappropriate for a mandatory non-opt-out class.


Barnes v. Am. Tobacco Co., 161 F.3d 127 (3d Cir. 1998)