Stammco Defendants Respond to Motion for Reconsideration

Last week, the Defendant-Appellants United Telephone of Ohio (UTO) and Sprint Nextel Corporation filed their memorandum contra Stammco’s motion for reconsideration in Stammco v. United Telephone Company of Ohio, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-3019.

In their brief, UTO and Sprint noted that Stammco’s motion is “little more than a request for yet another chance to seek class certification in the trial court.” 

The memorandum contra notes that the Court’s Stammco decision is in line with the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes and Amgen v. Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds and with other “cramming” cases across the country.

The memorandum contra further addresses each of Stammco’s arguments and explains why the Court’s decision was not in error. 

For example, UTO and Sprint explain that: (1) the Court’s analysis under Civil Rule 23(B)(3) is correct because the Court of Appeals found that “Civ.R. 23(B)(2) is unavailable for [Stammco’s] claims,” and Stammco never appealed; (2) the predominance issues were “repeatedly briefed and argued by both parties in the trial and appellate courts below” and (3) the final Stammco decision is consistent with the constitutional duty to “administer justice ‘without denial or delay.’”

We will continue to follow the Ohio Supreme Court’s decisions in this case and report back here on the blog.

Civil Rule 23 Requirements, Ohio Class Action Law