In re: Polaris Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation

Background

The plaintiffs were individuals who purchased off-road vehicles manufactured by Polaris Industries, Inc. and Polaris Sales Inc. They alleged that the vehicles had an “excessive heat defect” that caused fires, severe injuries, and deaths. The litigation began as multiple proposed class actions, which were consolidated. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint alleging 54 counts.

In March 2019, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed seven plaintiffs’ claims without prejudice for lack of standing. The plaintiffs then filed an amended consolidated complaint. In a February 26, 2020 order, the court again granted in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. As relevant here, the court concluded that seven plaintiffs had not alleged a particularized and actual injury and therefore lacked standing under Article III of the Constitution. The court dismissed those plaintiffs’ claims without prejudice.

Requests for Immediate Judgment

The plaintiffs asked the court to enter a final judgment on the dismissed plaintiffs’ claims under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 54(b) permits a court to enter judgment on fewer than all claims or parties only when there is no just reason to delay judgment.

The court determined that the dismissal of the seven plaintiffs’ claims was a final decision on those claims. But it found that nearly every other relevant factor weighed against immediate judgment. The dismissed and remaining claims involved different plaintiffs but substantial factual and legal overlap, including issues concerning the alleged defect and the injuries claimed. Immediate judgment could therefore produce a piecemeal appeal. The court also reasoned that future developments could make an appeal unnecessary, and that the same standing issues might arise again if additional plaintiffs were added.

The court found that no possible setoff was implicated, which weighed in favor of immediate judgment. But it concluded that the plaintiffs had not shown the required danger of hardship or injustice from waiting until the litigation reached a final judgment. The fact that some plaintiffs would have to wait before appealing was not, by itself, enough. The court therefore denied the plaintiffs’ motion for entry of judgment under Rule 54(b).

Request for Interlocutory Appeal

The plaintiffs alternatively sought certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) for an interlocutory appeal—a discretionary appeal before the case had ended. Certification requires a controlling legal question, substantial grounds for disagreement about that question, and an immediate appeal that would materially advance the end of the litigation.

The court assumed, without deciding, that its standing decision involved a controlling legal question. It nevertheless found that the plaintiffs did not satisfy the other requirements. The court had applied binding Eighth Circuit precedent stating that alleging a product-line defect or a risk that a product may develop a defect is not enough; plaintiffs must allege that their own product actually exhibited the defect. The plaintiffs relied only on decisions from federal district courts outside the Eighth Circuit and identified no authority showing a disagreement within the Eighth Circuit or a split among federal appeals courts.

The court also concluded that immediate review would not materially advance the litigation. Regardless of the appeal’s result, the case would continue with or without the dismissed plaintiffs. The court reasoned that an immediate appeal would instead delay the case, which remained at the pleading stage. It therefore denied the alternative motion for certification for an interlocutory appeal.

Disposition

The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for entry of judgment or, alternatively, certification for interlocutory appeal. Because certification was denied, Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright denied the plaintiffs’ request to stay the case pending an interlocutory appeal as moot.