RALEIGH, N.C. (Legal Newsline) - The North Carolina Supreme Court has found fault with a trial judge creating a class action of people who claim a car dealership flyer tricked them into thinking they won $20,000 or a free car.
They'd actually won $2, so they sued Nissan of Shelby and others involved with the flyer. Gaston County Superior Court Judge Forrest Bridges in 2021 certified a class made up of the lead plaintiffs and possibly 1,000 others.
But Gregg used one class definition to analyze certification criteria, then changed the definition when actually granting certification, the Supreme Court ruled on March 22.
"This inconsistency requires us to vacate the order and remand for further proceedings," Justice Richard Dietz wrote.
"(W)e cannot engage in meaningful appellate review of a trial court order - particularly one that includes a discretionary component - when the order suffers from this type of internal contradiction."
The flyer for a sale event in 2018 told recipients they had a chance to win one of six grand prizes, including a 2018 Sentra or $20,000. A scratch-off code was included, though it contained the same code number on all 50,000 flyers.
A separate activation code was located in a red box under contest instructions. It was used to identify contest winners.
Plaintiffs scratched their code to reveal they had won the grand prize, they thought, and called an event hotline. An automated system told them to come to the dealership to claim it.
Once there, they found out the activation code was the real code used to assign prizes. The two plaintiffs each won $2.
Discovery showed 2,557 people called the event hotline, and 1,167 made appointments to visit. It is unknown how many actually showed at the dealership, but it is estimated to be 927.
The class of plaintiffs was first defined as those whose flyer had a scratch-off number for the grand prize, then visited Nissan of Shelby to claim it. But Gregg's inconsistency came when the later class definition included the 1,167 who called the event hotline and made an appointment.
Other issues like conflicts of interest and efficiency concerns will persist even after Bridges takes up the certification issue again, the court said.