Cite as 2015 Ark. 73
and it is fair to both sides. Id. Where a cohesive and manageable class exists, we have held that real efficiency can be had if common, predominating questions of law or fact are first decided, with cases then splintering for the trial of individual issues, if necessary. Id. This court has further stated that when a circuit court is determining whether class-action status is the superior method for adjudication of a matter, it may be necessary for the circuit court to evaluate the manageability of the class. Id. In terms of manageability, the superiority requirement is closely related to predominance, as the presence of central individual issues makes class-action management more difficult. Newbern, supra, § 8:6.
The class-action mechanism is a superior method to adjudicate the overarching, predominant issue of Philip Morris's misrepresentation regarding Lights cigarettes. The circuit court made the following findings regarding superiority:
- It would not be cost effective for each putative class member to file separate lawsuits.
- The courts of the State of Arkansas would be unable to handle hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of individual cases.
- The defendants will only have to pay to litigate the issues presented by this matter one time, as opposed to potentially being required to appear and defend in dozens of courtrooms across the State of Arkansas.
These findings adequately supported the circuit court’s conclusion that a class action is a superior method to adjudicate the claim. A class action saves Philip Morris the trouble of defending multiple ADTPA claims across the state and also provides a convenient mechanism for numerous consumers to settle the question whether Philip Morris misrepresented its product. In other words, both parties benefit from the more efficient
14
