Altice USA, Inc., D/B/A Suddenlink Communications v. City of Gurdon, Arkansas Ex Rel. Honorable Sherry Kelley, Mayor, Individually and on Behalf of a Class of Similarly Situated Cities
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; November 10, 2022; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
Altice USA, Inc. (Suddenlink) appeals the Clark County Circuit Court's certification of a class-action lawsuit filed by the city of Gurdon, asserting that Suddenlink unlawfully charged three specific fees associated with its services. The lawsuit claims that the imposition of a 911 fee, Arkansas High-Cost Fund Fee, and franchise fee is unlawful. Gurdon sought class certification shortly after filing the lawsuit, while Suddenlink filed motions to compel arbitration and to dismiss the case. The circuit court granted class certification without addressing Suddenlink's motions, defining the class as Arkansas cities charged these fees in the five years prior to the lawsuit.
Suddenlink contends that the circuit court erred by certifying the class before considering its motion to compel arbitration, as Arkansas law requires a stay of judicial proceedings involving claims subject to arbitration. However, the court found that Suddenlink's motion to compel had not been denied, which precludes an appeal on that issue. Suddenlink failed to pursue an extraordinary writ to enforce the stay, leading to a dismissal of that portion of the appeal.
Regarding class certification, the court affirmed the circuit court's decision, emphasizing that reversal would only occur if Suddenlink could prove an abuse of discretion. The review focused solely on whether the evidence supported the certification, independent of the merits of the claims.
Six requirements are necessary for class-action certification: numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority, as outlined in Ark. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(b). Failure to meet any of these factors renders certification inappropriate, as established in Valley v. Nat’l Zinc Processors, Inc. Suddenlink does not dispute the class’s numerosity but contests the other five requirements.
1. **Commonality**: Suddenlink claims the circuit court erred in finding that Gurdon met the commonality requirement, which necessitates at least one common question of law or fact among class members. Gurdon asserts a cause of action for final declaratory relief concerning fees improperly collected by Suddenlink. The court previously recognized similar claims in Hotels.com, L.P. v. Pine Bluff Advertising Promotion Commission, affirming that Gurdon’s claims about the legality of 911 fees and associated refunds establish sufficient commonality. Consequently, the circuit court's finding that commonality is satisfied is upheld.
2. **Predominance**: This requirement, which is stricter than commonality, mandates that common questions of law or fact must prevail over individual issues. Suddenlink argues that Gurdon’s inability to identify a cause of action undermines the predominance requirement. However, since Gurdon has established a common cause of action, and there are no individual issues to consider, the court concludes that the predominance requirement is also met.
Gurdon and the proposed class assert that Suddenlink unlawfully imposed three identical service fees on its monthly bills, despite potential variations in fee amounts across different cities. The circuit court found that a common claim predominates among the class, which was deemed appropriate and not an abuse of discretion. Suddenlink contested the typicality requirement, arguing that Gurdon's claims were not representative of those of the class. However, the court determined that both Gurdon and the class shared the same legal theory and course of conduct regarding Suddenlink's fee assessments, thereby satisfying the typicality requirement.
Regarding adequacy, the court confirmed that Gurdon and her counsel could fairly represent the class’s interests. Suddenlink challenged this, claiming insufficient evidence supported the court’s findings. However, the court identified Gurdon’s attorneys as qualified and noted the absence of collusion or conflict of interest. Gurdon's mayor, who attended the certification hearing and is familiar with the claims due to her role in managing the city’s Suddenlink bill, further established adequate representation.
Lastly, Suddenlink argued against the superiority of a class action for resolving the claims. The court reiterated that common questions exist, particularly whether Suddenlink unlawfully charged various fees to Arkansas cities, indicating that a class action remains a superior method for addressing the issues at hand.
If the court rules against Suddenlink, it would absolve the company of liability to all class members, exemplifying judicial efficiency. The case supports the idea that handling a common issue through a representative trial can streamline proceedings, as affirmed in Indus. Welding Supplies of Hattiesburg, LLC v. Pinson. Since the cities involved in the class are geographically diverse, resolving their claims in one consolidated action is deemed fairer than conducting multiple trials. The circuit court's decision to certify a class action against Suddenlink is upheld, indicating no abuse of discretion.
The appeal regarding arbitration is dismissed because the circuit court did not issue an order denying Suddenlink’s motion to compel arbitration; thus, it is not subject to interlocutory appeal. The concurring opinion clarifies that the majority's reasoning regarding the absence of an order misrepresents the dismissal's basis, which pertains to the jurisdictional confines of Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure–Civil 2(a)(9). This rule permits limited appeals focusing solely on class certification criteria, excluding discussions on arbitration motions.
The case concludes with affirmations concerning class certification and the dismissal of the arbitration appeal, with the concurrence emphasizing the appropriate jurisdictional framework and the irrelevance of the arbitration issue to the class certification review.
