In re: Aqua Dots Products Liability Litigation

In action alleging that defendant's recall of defective child's toy was inadequate, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying plaintiff's motion to certify class action brought by individuals whose children were not harmed by product, and who did not seek refund. While Dist. Ct. improperly based denial on Rule 23(b)(3), after finding that defendant's recall program that allowed for full refund was superior to instant proposed class action (since recall program was not "adjudication" for purposes of applying Rule 23(b)(3)), denial was nevertheless appropriate under Rule 23(a)(4) since plaintiffs wanted relief that generally duplicated remedy already given to potential class members under recall program that otherwise did not have high transaction costs associated with proposed class action. Ct. further found that proposed nationwide class would be difficult to manage given differences in states' treatment of plaintiffs' request for punitive damages.