Ohio State Troopers Ass'n, Inc. v. Point Blank Enters., Inc.

481 F.Supp.3d 1258

OHIO STATE TROOPERS ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Plaintiffs,

v.POINT BLANK ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant.

Miguel Porras, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,

v.Point Blank Enterprises, Inc., Defendant.

CASE NOS. 18-CIV-63130-RAR

19-CIV-61881-RAR

United States District Court, S.D. Florida.

Signed August 24, 2020

Michael Wayne Moskowitz, Ari Jonathan Glazer, Moskowitz Mandell Salim & Simowitz, Fort Lauderdale, FL, Allan Kanner, Pro Hac Vice, Cynthia St. Amant, Pro Hac Vice, Kanner & Whiteley, LLC, New Orleans, LA, David M. Cohen, Pro Hac Vice, Complex Law Group, LLC, Marietta, GA, Herschel M. Sigall, Pro Hac Vice, Ohio State Troopers Association, Inc., Gahanna, OH, for Plaintiffs Ohio State Troopers Association, Inc., International Union of Police Associations, Trevor Koontz, Ryan Purpura, Steven Rohner, Alexander Pater, Lance Deshuk.

Conrad B. Stephens, Stephens and Stephens LLP, Santa Maria, CA, Frank J. Johnson, Johnson & Weaver, LLP, Phong L. Tran, Chase M. Stern, Pro Hac Vice, Johnson Fistel LLP, San Diego, CA, Allan Kanner, Pro Hac Vice, Cynthia St. Amant, Pro Hac Vice, Kanner & Whiteley, LLC, New Orleans, LA, David M. Cohen, Pro Hac Vice, Complex Law Group, LLC, Marietta, GA, Ari Jonathan Glazer, Moskowitz Mandell Salim & Simowitz, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Plaintiff Miguel Porras.

Brian Michael Ercole, Clay Matthew Carlton, Carlos A. Haag, Morgan, Lewis, Bockius LLP, Bruno Reategui, Miami, FL, Brian F. Morris, Pro Hac Vice, Elisa P. McEnroe, Pro Hac Vice, Troy S. Brown, Pro Hac Vice, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Philadelphia, PA, Leonard Keith Samuels, Berger Singerman LLP, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Defendant.

OMNIBUS ORDER DENYING CLASS CERTIFICATION AND DISMISSING CASE

RODOLFO A. RUIZ II, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiffs Ohio State Troopers Association, Inc., International Union of Police Associations, Trevor Koontz, Eric Rohner, Ryan Purpura, Alexander Pater, Lance Deshuk, and Miguel Porras claim that Defendant Point Blank Enterprises, Inc. ("Point Blank") violated various consumer protection statutes and breached express and implied warranties by selling bullet-proof vests with allegedly defective velcro straps. As a result, Plaintiffs claim that they and their proposed classes of purchasers are entitled to damages and injunctive relief.

This action is now before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Motion for Class Certification and Related Relief, and Memorandum of Law in Support [ECF No. 159] ("Motion") and Point Blank's Amended Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion to Deny Class Certification [ECF No. 75] ("Def. Mot.").¹ Essentially, the parties disagree as to whether Plaintiffs meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Defendant Point Blank argues that this action is not suited for class certification because, inter alia , the proposed class definition is overbroad and individualized questions predominate over common questions. Plaintiffs, however, assure the Court that this action satisfies Rule 23 requirements and posit that Point Blank's concerns are an unfounded parade of horribles. After careful review of the record, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden. This action is not suited for class certification. Being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification [ECF No. 159] is DENIED and Point Blank's Motion to Deny Class Certification [ECF No. 75] is GRANTED , as set forth herein. Further, the Court finds that amendment would be futile. In the absence of class certification, the Court is without jurisdiction and the action is therefore DISMISSED without prejudice .

BACKGROUND

The parties are well-versed in the facts of this case. Below, the Court gives only a brief recitation of the factual and procedural background relevant to the instant motions.

I. Factual Background

A. Defendant

Point Blank is "a manufacturer of law enforcement protective products, including ballistic resistant soft body armor." Complaint-Class Action [ECF No. 1] ("Compl.") ¶ 1. Point Blank sells a variety of ballistic vest models, a subset of which contain a proprietary "Self-Suspending Ballistic System (SSBS)" feature. Id. at ¶¶ 1–2. An alleged defect in the straps of these SSBS vests is at issue in this action. Id. at ¶ 2.

B. Plaintiffs

"Association Plaintiffs" include Plaintiff Ohio State Troopers Association, Inc. ("OSTA") and Plaintiff International Union of Police Associations ("IUPA"). Id. at ¶¶ 6–8. Both organizations are entities that represent the interests of their respective law enforcement members. Id. "Individual Plaintiffs" include Trevor Koontz ("Koontz"), Eric Rohner ("Rohner"), Ryan Purpura ("Purpura"), Alexander Pater ("Pater"), and Lance Deshuk ("Deshuk"). Id. at ¶¶ 10–52. Individual Plaintiffs are police officers in the Ohio State Highway Patrol. Id. Each officer purchased one of Point Blank's SSBS vests between 2012 and 2016, and each alleges that his vest contained defective SSBS straps. Id. Koontz and Pater each purchased a Point Blank Vision vest, Rohner and Purpura each purchased a Point Blank Elite vest, and Deshuk purchased a Point Blank HiLite (II) vest. Id. at ¶¶ 11–49.

Plaintiff Miguel Porras ("Porras") is a police officer in the Glendale California Police Department. Complaint, Miguel Porras v. Point Blank Enters., Inc. , No. 19-CIV-61881 [ECF No. 1] ("Porras Compl.") ¶ 22. Porras purchased Point Blank's "PBBA Elite" model of SSBS vest in 2014 and alleges the same defect with the SSBS. Id. at ¶¶ 23, 33. As Porras's case was consolidated after the Court's Order on Defendant's Corrected Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 53] ("MTD Order"), the Court has yet to address whether Porras has Article III standing. Accordingly, the Court will separately address Porras and his claims and refer to Association Plaintiffs and Individual Plaintiffs collectively as the "Plaintiffs" (or, when necessary to discuss Porras and OSTA Plaintiffs together, as "OSTA Plaintiffs").

C. The SSBS Vests

Plaintiffs allege that ballistic vests typically consist of two parts: ballistic panels for protection and a carrier into which the panels are placed. Compl. ¶ 64. In a traditional ballistic vest system, ballistic panels are placed into pouches on the carrier, which contains straps or another mechanism for suspending the vest as a garment on the wearer. Id. at ¶ 65. In Point Blank's SSBS vests, the straps used to suspend those vests are sewn directly onto the ballistic panels, and the panels are not removable by the user. Id. at ¶¶ 66–68. The straps utilize a "hook and loop" material—colloquially known as "velcro"—to connect and support the vest on its user. Opp. at 5–6.

Point Blank claims that it makes "hundreds of different [SSBS vest] models—with different ballistic packages, carriers, weights, and designs that have changed over time." Def. Mot. at 12. Point Blank notes two intra-model design changes to the SSBS systems during the proposed class period—a change in the "hook" material for the strap closures in 2016 and a change in the "loop" material in 2017. Id. at 4–5.

Plaintiffs allege that "PBE sold 7 models of concealable SSBS Vests during the relevant period—the Elite, Vision, Hi-Lite, C-Series, sold under PBE's PBBA brand, and the Blue Steel, Perform-X, and Standard, sold under PBE's PACA brand." Pls. Opp. at 14. Plaintiffs allege that the Vision and Blue Steel models are the same, the Hi-Lite and Perform-X models are the same, and the C-Series and Standard models are the same—with the only difference being the actual name. Id. Plaintiffs note that they have collectively purchased models that contain both intra-model design changes to the hook-and-loop materials. Id. at 16. Still, they argue that the alleged defect in the SSBS system is constant across each version, and that the intra-model design changes do not affect the vests’ defective performance. Id.

D. The Alleged Defect

For each pair of SSBS straps, one strap contains a series of small hooks that engage with the loops on the other strap, holding the pair in place. Compl. ¶ 121. Hook and loop connections can be separated by shearing, peeling, or a combination of the two. Pls. Opp. at 2. "Shearing" is generally understood as separating the hook and loop materials by pulling them apart in a parallel manner (applying force until they break free from each other all at once), whereas "peeling" is understood as separating the hook and loop materials by lifting in a perpendicular manner and pulling one edge of the hook material back, allowing one row of hooks at a time to disengage from the loop material. Id. ; Hearing Tr. [ECF No. 196] at 20:13–20.

At bottom, Plaintiffs claim that Point Blank's SSBS vests are defective because they allege that the straps will prematurely deteriorate and ultimately be unable to support the weight of the ballistic panel. Mot. at 2, 11–15. According to Plaintiffs, this defect exists at the time of sale because premature failure will inevitably occur regardless of how the hook and loop connections are separated. Id. However, Point Blank argues that the rate of degradation is dependent upon use and, while the SSBS straps may be damaged by shearing—which Point Blank contends is a "misuse"—the straps will not prematurely fail due to peeling. Opp. at 32–33, 38.

E. The Warranties

Plaintiffs allege that Point Blank made both express and implied warranties regarding the quality and performance of its SSBS vests. Compl. ¶ 141. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that there are three sources of express warranties: the care and maintenance manuals that are shipped with every SSBS vest; warranties sewn onto the ballistic panel of each SSBS vest; and Point Blank's advertisements. Id. ¶¶ 19–21. According to Plaintiffs, each of these warranties warranted the fitness and quality of the SSBS Vests for a period of five years. Id. ¶¶ 143–48. Point Blank contends that the SSBS portion of its vests...