Ohio State Troopers Association, Inc. et al v. Point Blank Enterprises, Inc.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-13588
________________________
D.C. Docket Nos. 0:18-cv-63130-RAR,
0:19-cv-61881-RAR
OHIO STATE TROOPERS ASSOCIATION, INC., 18-cv-63130-RAR
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF POLICE ASSOCIATIONS,
TREVOR KOONTZ,
RYAN PURPURA,
STEVEN ROHNER,
ALEXANDER PATER,
LANCE DESHUK,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
POINT BLANK ENTERPRISES, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
__________________________________________________________________
MIGUEL PORRAS, 19-cv-61881-RAR
individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
USCA11 Case: 20-13588 Date Filed: 09/27/2021 Page: 1 of 5

-- 1 of 5 --

2
POINT BLANK ENTERPRISES, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(September 27, 2021)
Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiffs-Appellants Ohio State Troopers Association, Inc., International
Union of Police Associations, Trevor Koontz, Ryan Purpura, Steven Rohner,
Alexander Pater, Lance Deshuk, and Miguel Porras (Appellants) sued Defendant-
Appellee Point Blank Enterprises, Inc. (Point Blank) for alleged violations of
various consumer protection statutes and breached express and implied warranties
for selling bullet-proof vests with allegedly defective “hook and loop” straps.
Appellants claimed that, because of the defect, they and their proposed classes of
vest purchasers are entitled to damages and injunctive relief. The district court
denied class certification and dismissed the complaint, finding that Appellants
failed to meet their burden of satisfying the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
USCA11 Case: 20-13588 Date Filed: 09/27/2021 Page: 2 of 5

-- 2 of 5 --

3
Procedure 23. Appellants timely appealed.1 After reviewing the briefs and with the
benefit of oral argument, we affirm the district court because it did not abuse its
discretion in its well-reasoned order dated August 24, 2020.
Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history of this
case, we provide only a brief overview. Point Blank is a manufacturer of law
enforcement protective products, including ballistic-resistant soft body armor.
Point Blank sells a variety of ballistic vest models, a subset of which contain a
proprietary “Self-Suspending Ballistic System” (SSBS) feature. An alleged defect
in the shoulder straps of the vests that have this SSBS feature brought Appellants
to sue Point Blank. According to Appellants’ complaint, a defect in the vests’
SSBS feature causes the hook and loop fasteners to lose efficacy over time,
eventually causing the vest to slip during wear, potentially exposing the wearers to
danger.
1 Appellants also appeal the district court’s denial of Porras’s motion for class certification. The
district court denied class certification after finding that Porras lacked standing to represent his
proposed class. Porras sought to bring California-based claims on behalf of “[a]ll individuals and
entities in California that purchased a new SSBS Vest from [Point Blank] or one of its sales
representatives or authorized distributors.” However, Porras purchased only one SSBS vest
model: the PBBA Elite. We find no error in the district court’s factual findings or in its
application of the legal standard. The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in
denying the certification of a class of individuals that consists of purchasers of every model of
SSBS vest.
USCA11 Case: 20-13588 Date Filed: 09/27/2021 Page: 3 of 5

-- 3 of 5 --

4
After carefully sifting through the parties’ expert reports and studies2, the
district court denied class certification, finding that Appellants failed to meet
multiple requirements under Rule 23(a) and (b). The district court found, among
other things, that: no common evidence of a classwide defect exists; the proposed
classes are overbroad; individual issues predominate over common ones; and
Appellants offered no classwide method of calculating damages.
We review a district court’s decision about whether to certify a class for an
abuse of discretion. Brown v. Electrolux Home Prods., Inc., 817 F.3d 1225, 1233
(11th Cir. 2016). A district court abuses its discretion if it applies the wrong legal
standard or bases its decision on clearly erroneous findings of fact. See Cherry v.
Dometic Corp., 986 F.3d 1296, 1300 (11th Cir. 2021). The burden of proof rests on
the party seeking class certification. Brown, 817 F.3d at 1233. If there is doubt
“about whether the [class certification] standard is satisfied, ‘the party with the
burden of proof loses.’” Id. (quoting Simmons v. Blodgett, 110 F.3d 39, 42 (9th Cir.
1997)).
2 Although both parties proffer their own experts and studies on the durability of the SSBS strap
feature, the parties stipulated to the withdrawal of their dueling Daubert motions in the
proceedings below. Accordingly, the battle over evidence has been forfeited before this court.
Baldwin v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Ala., 480 F.3d 1287, 1308 n.2 (11th Cir. 2007) (“We do not
ordinarily consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal.”). Nonetheless, the district court
adequately explained its reasons for finding Point Blank’s expert testimony about the lack of a
uniform defect to be more persuasive than Appellants’ expert.
USCA11 Case: 20-13588 Date Filed: 09/27/2021 Page: 4 of 5

-- 4 of 5 --

5
The district court here did not abuse its discretion in denying class
certification. Under Appellants’ defect theory, the district court properly found that
individualized inquiries would be required to resolve how each class member used
their SSBS vest and whether they experienced the alleged defect. Appellants
offered no common evidence capable of showing a uniform classwide defect at the
time of sale. Appellants thus have not met their burden under Rule 23(a)(2) of
demonstrating that there are questions of fact or law common to the class that have
the capacity to “generate common answers” and are “capable of classwide
resolution.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350 (2011) (explaining
that a common contention is capable of classwide resolution when the
“determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the
validity of each one of the claims in one stroke”).
The district court based its factual findings on a review of an extensive
record and Appellants have not met their burden of proving that those findings
were clearly erroneous. See Cherry, 986 F.3d at 1300. Therefore, because the
correct legal standard was applied to these factual findings, the district court did
not abuse its discretion and we affirm the denial of class certification.
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 20-13588 Date Filed: 09/27/2021 Page: 5 of 5

-- 5 of 5 --