Taqueria El Primo LLC v. Farmers Group, Inc.

Background

Plaintiffs brought this class action against several defendant insurance companies. They allege that the defendants entered confidential agreements with certain health care providers under which the providers agreed not to bill the defendants for treatment provided to people insured by the defendants. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants did not disclose these agreements to policyholders or the public, and that the resulting coverage limits violate Minnesota law and the insurance policies.

Plaintiffs sought damages, a declaration that unlawful coverage limits are void, and an injunction against enforcing limits that violate Minnesota law or the policies. In December 2021, the court certified a Damages Class and an Injunctive Class under the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act. The Damages Class included persons or entities that purchased qualifying insurance policies in Minnesota on or after January 17, 2013. The Injunctive Class used similar criteria but also required members to maintain their policies.

After the certification order, the parties identified approximately 250,000 potential class members for the period from January 17, 2013, through December 17, 2021. A dispute arose over whether the Damages Class was intended to continue without an end date.

The defendants’ motion

The defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a), which allows a court to correct clerical mistakes or errors caused by oversight or omission in an order. They asked the court to clarify that the Damages Class was not ongoing or, alternatively, to amend the class definition to add an end date of December 28, 2021.

The defendants argued that a class without an end date was not ascertainable. A class is ascertainable when objective criteria make it possible to determine who belongs to it. The plaintiffs opposed the motion because they had proposed an ongoing Damages Class and contended that the court’s certification order adopted that proposal.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the absence of an end date was not an oversight because the court did not intend to impose one. The court also identified and corrected a typographical error in the wording of the Damages and Injunctive Classes. The correction changed the wording from “or” to “that” and did not change the composition of the classes.

The court rejected the defendants’ alternative request to add an end date. It concluded that the ongoing Damages Class remained ascertainable because its members could be identified through objective criteria and readily available data. The court noted that more than 250,000 potential members had already been identified using information from the defendants.

The court further held that the possibility of adding future class members did not make the class unmanageable. It explained that the class could be limited if the challenged practices were found unlawful and stopped, or the damages issue could become moot if the practices were upheld. The court also stated that the class notice could be updated as necessary.

Potential additional class members must have an opportunity to exclude themselves from the case before the litigation ends. The court directed the parties to meet and confer and jointly propose how additional members should be identified and notified.

Disposition

The court denied the Defendants’ Motion for Clarification of Orders on Class Certification and Class Notice or, in the Alternative, for Amendment of the Orders. Judge John R. Tunheim did not set an end date for the Damages Class and held that its ongoing nature did not make it unascertainable.