Feamster v. Gaco Western, LLC

Background

Robert Scott Feamster, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a proposed class action alleging violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, along with seven common-law claims, including breach of express warranty, negligence, strict product liability, and fraudulent misrepresentation. He alleged that he bought Gaco Western’s spray-foam insulation for his home, that the foam shrank and failed to bond after installation, and that Gaco Western representatives identified a formulation error affecting the entire batch. Feamster alleged that he and other proposed class members suffered property damage.

The proposed class covered individuals who had Gaco Western foam with the same formulation or from the same batch installed on their property. Gaco Western filed a motion to deny class certification before Feamster filed a certification motion. The court held that Rule 23 permits such a preemptive motion, particularly because Feamster had not filed his certification motion by the court-ordered deadline.

Class-Certification Analysis

Under Rule 23(a), a proposed class must meet four requirements: numerosity, meaning enough members that joining them individually would be impractical; commonality; typicality; and adequacy of representation. The court focused on numerosity and adequacy.

For numerosity, Gaco Western presented evidence that six sales of the foam occurred in California during the relevant period: three sales from each of two potentially defective batches. The sales primarily went to Performance Foam Tech, the supplier used by Feamster, and about $1,950 worth of product went to Chemtek Foam and Coatings Inc. The court found that the evidence showed only two suppliers and a limited quantity of potentially relevant product. Although Gaco Western could not conclusively show that Feamster was the only California consumer who had the product installed, the court found that Feamster had not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed class was large enough for joinder to be impractical.

Feamster responded that Gaco Western had shipped at least nine batch designations in 63 batches to at least 191 customers. The court found no supporting evidence for that statement and no connection between those customers and the proposed class of California consumers. The court also rejected Feamster’s statement that Gaco Western’s evidence showed that two people received two defective batches, explaining that the two suppliers were not themselves consumers and that the record contained evidence of only Feamster as a consumer who received the defective product. The court further stated that evidence of two consumers would not establish numerosity under the applicable standard.

The court separately held that Feamster could not satisfy Rule 23(a)(4)’s adequacy requirement. A person representing himself may represent his own interests but may not represent a class without legal representation. Feamster’s lawyer had withdrawn, and Feamster had not obtained new counsel despite receiving additional time to do so. The court concluded that his decision to proceed without a lawyer meant that he could not adequately represent the proposed class.

Jurisdiction and Disposition

Gaco Western also asked the court to dismiss the entire action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court denied that request, holding that continued jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act does not depend on class certification.

The court granted Gaco Western’s motion to deny class certification because Feamster could not establish numerosity or adequacy of representation. The court did not dismiss the entire action and set a further case-management conference for March 31, 2020.