On July 9, 2013, Judge Lynn issued a memorandum opinion and order (available here) in the Simms v. Jones case. Judge Lynn found that plaintiffs’ motion for class certification should be denied in its entirety. Plaintiffs were ticketholders for Super Bowl XLV held at Cowboys Stadium in 2011 who
claim to have been affected by the partial completion of the temporary seating: (1) those who paid for and/or acquired tickets to Super Bowl XLV and were denied seats to the game (the proposed “Displaced Class”); (2) those who were delayed in gaining access to their seats due to delays installing temporary seating (the proposed “Delayed Class”); (3) those who were relocated from their assigned seat as listed on their ticket to other seats of lesser quality in the stadium (the proposed “Relocated Class”); and (4) those who were seated, but had an obstructed view of the field and/or Video Replay Board (the proposed “Obstructed View Class”). The Plaintiffs seek class certification for each of these groups.
Judge Lynn found that the Displaced Class did not satisfy the numerosity requirement, as only a maximum of 40 potential class members remain. Additionally, Judge Lynn couldn’t certify the class because the potential class members suffered different amounts in damages: “If the Court were to certify the class, the trial on the merits would devolve into 40 mini-trials solely to determine damages. It is, therefore, clear that individual damages issues predominate over the one remaining common legal issue.”
Regarding the Delayed Class and Relocated Class, Judge Lynn found, among other things, that the issue of damages predominates over the common issues surrounding contract interpretation and breach, such that “mini-trials for every class member will still be necessary to determine an individual’s damages.” Further:
The Court thus cannot conclude that a class action is superior to other available methods for adjudicating the controversy. The Court finds that the burdens and costs associated with proceeding as a class action outweigh potential benefits. The damage questions will be more complex than any questions of contract interpretation or common liability, and any judicial economy achieved by class resolution will be minimal. Class counsel for the limited, common issues would need to be compensated, yet individual members may need attorneys to assist in proving damages. Members who have documented expenses may not require assistance of counsel, but those who need to provide testimony to prove their expenses may be unable to do so on their own. The potential need for multiple sets of counsel makes compensation to class counsel a highly complex matter. This would be further complicated if class counsel succeeded on all common elements, but individual counsel could not obtain an award for damages. Given that multiple sets of attorneys may seek payment from the eventual awards, pursuing these claims through a class action may significantly reduce the damage awards to class members.
Regarding the Obstructed View Class, this class was similarly not certified “because the need to calculate individual damages predominates over the common issues.”