## Facts

- A manufacturer designed, made, and distributed a pacemaker lead (the “854 lead”) implanted in 10,549 patients across 48 states; about 8,200 patients still had the lead implanted when class certification was decided.
- The lead used a J-shaped metal retention wire that could fracture over time from metal fatigue; reported injuries occurred when a fractured wire protruded through part of the lead.
- A patient filed a nationwide products-liability class action asserting negligence, strict liability, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, warranty claims, and emotional distress, and sought to impose derivative liability on related corporate entities.
- Requested relief included classwide notice, a medical-monitoring fund, payment of future medical expenses, additional research, and compensatory and punitive damages.
- The district court denied certification under Rule 23(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), (b)(2), and (b)(3); the plaintiff appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a nationwide class was proper under Rule 23(b)(1)(A) based on a risk of inconsistent adjudications imposing incompatible standards of conduct.
2. Whether certification was proper under Rule 23(b)(1)(B) based on a limited-fund theory or impairment of absent members’ interests.
3. Whether certification was proper under Rule 23(b)(2) where the complaint sought both injunctive-type relief (including medical monitoring) and substantial monetary damages.
4. Whether certification was proper under Rule 23(b)(3) given multistate choice-of-law problems, variations in state substantive law, individualized issues of causation/injury/damages, and manageability/superiority concerns.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of class certification.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing certification under Rule 23(b)(1)(A) because ordinary personal-injury damages actions do not create incompatible standards of conduct.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing certification under Rule 23(b)(1)(B) because plaintiffs did not show a true limited fund or that individual adjudications would practically dispose of or impair absent members’ interests.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing certification under Rule 23(b)(2) because monetary relief predominated over injunctive or declaratory relief.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing certification under Rule 23(b)(3) because state-law variation and individualized causation, injury, and damages issues defeated predominance and made a nationwide class unmanageable and not superior.

## Legal Principles

- Class-certification rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion; the proponent of certification bears the burden of satisfying Rule 23.
- Rule 23(b)(1)(A) is aimed at preventing separate actions that would impose incompatible standards of conduct, not at aggregating cases that may yield different damages awards.
- Rule 23(b)(1)(B) requires a concrete showing of circumstances such as a limited fund or practical impairment of absent members’ interests from individual adjudications.
- Rule 23(b)(2) is improper when final relief is predominantly monetary and would require individualized damages determinations.
- In multistate products-liability class actions under Rule 23(b)(3), plaintiffs must address choice-of-law and provide a rigorous, workable approach to state-law differences; substantial legal variation and individualized issues of causation, injury, and damages commonly defeat predominance and manageability.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld denial of a nationwide pacemaker-lead class because the asserted claims and requested relief required individualized proof and implicated substantial differences in applicable state law, preventing certification under Rule 23(b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3).


Zinser v. Accufix Rsch. Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2001)