Will the Gifford v. USGBC Class Action Lawsuit Be Certified?

I knew there was a reason I saved my law school text books.  

When I first heard of the class action lawsuit filed by Henry Gifford against the USGBC, my initial thought was "how in the world will he get a class certified?"  The initial hurdle for any class action lawsuit is to get one or more classes certified.  When a plaintiff, in this case Gifford, files a class action lawsuit, he is essentially asserting that there are a number of additional plaintiffs with similar complaints that should be included in the lawsuit and that he should be able to represent the additional plaintiffs. 

The plaintiffs goal is to convince the judge that a class or classes of people should be certified in the lawsuit.  Once certified, a class action lawsuit is much scarier for the defendant because financial liability scenarios go up drastically.  

Gifford is attempting to certify four separate classes:

1. All persons who paid for LEED certification in reliance on alleged deceptive marketing related to energy performance in LEED buildings.  

2. "All persons who design energy-efficient buildings and whose livelihoods are injured by USGBC's monopolization of the market through fraudulent and intentionally misleading representations in the marketing and promotion of the LEED product line. . ."

3.  All taxpayers whose city and state tax dollars are spent on the costs of LEED certification in publicly-commissioned buildings.

4.  Trades injured by USGBC's alleged deceptive trade practices because the trades lose money and time in having to comply with LEED certification even though the buildings are allegedly not saving energy.

Thankfully, I saved my Pleading and Procedure text book, which illuminates the four requirements of class certification.  I am by no means a class action lawyer but we can have fun speculating together as to whether any of Gifford's classes can be certified.  Here are the four requirements of class certification:  

Numerosity

"Rule 23(a)(1) requires that the class be so numerous that joinder of all members as individual named parties be 'impracticable.'"

Commonality

"Rule 23(a)(2) requires that there be questions of law or fact common to the class."

Typicality

"Rule 23(a)(3) requires that the claims or defenses of the named ('representative') party or parties be typical of those of the class as a whole."

Fair and adequate protection of the interests of the class

"Rule 23(a)(4) requires that the named party or parties provide fair and adequate protection of the interests of the class as a whole." 

Now its time for a pop quiz.  For this pop quiz, we are going to focus on Gifford's second proposed class:  "All persons who design energy-efficient buildings and whose livelihoods are injured by USGBC's monopolization of the market through fraudulent and intentionally misleading representations in the marketing and promotion of the LEED product line. . ."

1.  Do you think Gifford's class is numerous and all parties can not be included as regular plaintiffs?

2.  Are there questions of law or fact that are common to Gifford's class? 

3.  Are Gifford's claims typical of the class as a whole?

4.  Will Gifford provide fair and adequate protection for the interests of the class? 

Photo credit: Doctr

Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
http://www.greenbuildinglawupdate.com/admin/trackback/227247
Comments (4) Read through and enter the discussion with the form at the end
Christopher G. Hill - October 20, 2010 10:12 AM

Having been a part of this analysis in other contexts, the answer is probably. The definition of the class is key. In short, if Gifford can come up with the right words, he clears this hurdle.

Douglas Reiser - October 20, 2010 10:53 AM

Does this guy have an injury common to the class he is seeking to represent? In 23 pages of pleading, he never once mentions that he or his business has built a LEED building and been harmed because of it. I'm not sure that he can adequately represent the classes he has listed.

That said, Chris is probably right that he can carve out at least one class where he might fit the bill. If his lawyers push for a narrow class, he might get to move on.

James Hayes - October 20, 2010 11:43 AM

I find it interesting that you are looking at whether the case can be certified rather than whether there is any merit to what he claims. Is there any learning for USGBC in the accusations? Is there anything that can be improved?

Christopher G. Hill - October 26, 2010 7:49 AM

Doug- this guy may or may not be a great class rep. However, he just needs to find one for those states in which he wishes to file.

James- Things may need to be improved, but we'll never find out if the class doesn't get certified.

Post A Comment / Question Use this form to add a comment to this entry.







Remember personal info?
Send To A Friend Use this form to send this entry to a friend via email.