In July, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota denied class certification to a proposed class of retired NHL hockey players who alleged that the NHL knowingly failed to warn them of the potentially harmful effects of the concussive and subconcussive impacts they sustained during their playing careers. The players are seeking medical monitoring for symptoms of neurological disorders.
The court rejected the players' argument that the class could be certified under FRCP 23(b)(2), which permits class actions seeking common injunctive or declaratory relief, because it found that the plaintiffs' medical monitoring remedy was "predominantly monetary in nature," rather than injunctive. The court instead agreed with the NHL that certification must be analyzed under FRCP 23(b)(3), which requires a finding by the court that common questions of law or fact predominate over questions affecting only individual members.
District Judge Nelson held that the putative class could not meet this standard under the "rigorous analysis" required by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 348 (2011). The court rejected the players' argument that, because the NHL's headquarters are in New York, legal liability could be determined as a matter of New York law with respect to every player's claim. It also rejected their argument that, because the players had sued in Minnesota, Minnesota law applied to each player's proposed medical monitoring relief.
Instead, the court applied Minnesota conflicts of laws principles and held that liability and relief issues must be determined by the laws of the states where the players spent their careers or are currently domiciled. Finding that these laws differ materially from state to state, the court held that the players' common legal issues did not predominate for the purposes of certifying a Rule 23(b)(3) class.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
