## Facts

- John D. Szabo, doing business as Zatron, purchased a Bridgeport vertical machining center equipped with a Bridgeport DX-32 Control Unit.
- Szabo alleged the machine failed to meet technical specifications and performance characteristics stated in Bridgeport promotional materials and in an offer letter attributed to Bridgeport’s sales channel.
- Szabo alleged Bridgeport knew the DX-32 control was defective and that its marketing and sales communications were fraudulent or negligently misleading.
- Szabo sued for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of warranty related to the machine and its DX-32 control.
- Szabo sought to represent a nationwide class of persons who purchased Bridgeport machining centers or CNC milling machines containing a DX-32 control unit from January 1, 1996 forward and were damaged.

## Issues

1. Whether the proposed nationwide class satisfied Rule 23(a)’s numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements.
2. Whether the proposed class satisfied Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance requirement given issues such as individual reliance, individualized purchasing circumstances, and damages.
3. Whether a class action was superior to individual suits for resolving purchasers’ claims about the DX-32 control and related sales representations, including manageability concerns for a nationwide class.

## Decision

- The court granted Szabo’s motion for class certification.
- The court certified a nationwide class of purchasers of Bridgeport machining centers and CNC milling machines containing the DX-32 control unit during the defined period who were allegedly damaged.
- The court found Rule 23(a) satisfied:
  - Numerosity: at least hundreds of purchasers nationwide made joinder impracticable.
  - Commonality: shared questions centered on whether the DX-32 was defective and whether Bridgeport’s marketing and sales communications misrepresented capabilities and limitations.
  - Typicality: Szabo’s claims arose from the same alleged defect and the same type of alleged misstatements as the class’s claims.
  - Adequacy: Szabo’s interests aligned with absent class members, and counsel were competent to conduct the litigation.
- The court found Rule 23(b)(3) satisfied:
  - Predominance: core questions about defect, knowledge, and uniform misrepresentations predominated over individualized issues.
  - Superiority: class treatment was more efficient and realistic than dispersed, expert-intensive individual litigation.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 23(a) is met when a large, geographically dispersed group makes joinder impracticable and the representative’s claims arise from the same alleged conduct and injury type as the class.
- Commonality and predominance may be supported where purchasers’ claims turn on shared questions about an allegedly defective product component and the defendant’s allegedly uniform marketing or sales representations.
- Differences in individual transactions and damages do not necessarily defeat typicality or predominance when the litigation’s central liability questions are common.
- Rule 23(b)(3) superiority is supported when individual suits are economically inefficient, particularly where expert proof is likely required and claimants are dispersed.

## Conclusion

The court certified a nationwide damages class of purchasers of Bridgeport machines containing the DX-32 control unit, concluding that common questions about an alleged defect and alleged misrepresentations predominated and that class litigation was the superior method to resolve the dispute.


Szabo v. Bridgeport Machs., Inc., 199 F.R.D. 280 (N.D. Ind. 2001)