Prince
Lobel attorneys representing 3Com Corporation (3Com), recently defeated a
motion for class certification in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of PA. The motion was brought by a putative class of customers
who alleged that they purchased a telephone equipment and services program
called “Power of Zero,” which was developed and sold by Capital 4, a former
3Com Value Added Reseller.
The two putative
class representatives (who were defendants, counter-claim and third-party plaintiffs)
alleged that they were Power of Zero customers and claimed, among other things,
that 3Com had assumed Capital 4’s obligations under their Power of Zero
contracts with Capital 4 and breached those obligations by failing to provide
telephone and Internet services after Capital 4 went out of business.
The putative
class representatives sought certification of multiple claims against 3Com,
including claims for breach of contract, breach of third-party beneficiary rights,
conspiracy to commit fraud and violations of the federal RICO statute and
various state law claims related to unfair trade practices.
After discovery
on the class issues, two stages of extensive legal briefing, and a two-day
evidentiary hearing, U.S. District Court Judge Michael Baylson denied class
certification based on, among other things:
- “Adequacy”: Neither the
plaintiffs nor class counsel could adequately represent the class as
required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4);
- “Predominance”: Common issues
did not predominate over individualized issues as required under Rule
23(b)(3); and
- “Superiority”: The class action
would not be superior to other available methods of adjudication as
required under Rule 23(b)(3).
Prince
Lobel attorneys who worked on the case representing 3Com included partner Thomas M. Elcock, and associates John E. Matosky and Adam R.
Doherty.
Click here to read the
full text of the court’s decision.
