## Facts

- Named plaintiffs sought to represent a nationwide class of “nicotine-dependent persons” who purchased and smoked defendants’ cigarettes, plus various derivative claimants (estates and family members).
- Plaintiffs framed the alleged injury as nicotine addiction (not smoking-related diseases), asserting defendants concealed nicotine’s addictiveness and manipulated nicotine levels to sustain addiction.
- The certified class covered smokers since 1943 and was estimated to include roughly 50 million people.
- Plaintiffs alleged multiple state-law causes of action, including fraud and misrepresentation, negligence-based claims, emotional distress, consumer-protection claims, warranty claims, strict products liability, and Louisiana redhibition, seeking compensatory and punitive damages and other relief.
- Plaintiffs conceded addiction would require individualized proof for each class member.

## Issues

1. Whether common questions predominated under Rule 23(b)(3) given (a) material variations in applicable state law and (b) individualized issues such as addiction, reliance, causation, defenses, and damages.
2. Whether a nationwide class action was a superior method of adjudication under Rule 23(b)(3) in light of manageability problems typical of mass-tort litigation.

## Decision

- The district court conditionally certified a nationwide Rule 23(b)(3) class for “core liability” issues.
- On interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), the Fifth Circuit reversed and decertified the class.
- The court held the district court abused its discretion by failing to conduct the required analysis of state-law variations and by understating how individualized issues would control the litigation.
- The court further held the superiority and manageability findings were unsupported, particularly given the class’s size, heterogeneity, and mass-tort features.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 23(b)(3) requires a rigorous analysis of whether common questions predominate over individual questions; courts must evaluate the issues likely to be tried, not merely the pleadings.
- A nationwide state-law class ordinarily requires a serious choice-of-law and state-law survey; material differences in elements, defenses, and remedies can defeat predominance.
- Individualized proof problems—such as class membership determinations (here, addiction), reliance for fraud-based claims, and individualized causation and damages—can overwhelm common issues and preclude (b)(3) certification.
- The superiority inquiry requires a realistic assessment of manageability; courts may not assume a class action is more efficient without confronting the practical difficulties of trial and administration.
- Mass-tort (b)(3) classes warrant close scrutiny because they can create settlement pressure unrelated to merits, and manageability problems often make class treatment inappropriate.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit decertified the nationwide nicotine-addiction class because plaintiffs did not satisfy Rule 23(b)(3): state-law variation and individualized issues prevented predominance, and the proposed mass-tort class was not shown to be a manageable or superior method for adjudication.


Castano v. Am. Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734 (5th Cir. 1996)