Anne McVicar v. Goodman Manufacturing Company LP, 8:13-cv-01223

Background

Plaintiffs allege Goodman sold air conditioners with copper coils defective due to formicary corrosion that causes refrigerant leaks.
Class action seeks CA residents with properties containing Goodman/Amana units installed from 2006 to present, asserting CLRA, FAL, UCL, implied warranty, and MMWA claims.
Named plaintiffs: Rich Harlan and the Grosses (though the Grosses’ claim is narrowed by standing issues).
SAC alleges marketing omissions and misrepresentations about quality, durability, and warranties, relied on by purchasers.
Court consolidated prior proceedings; motions to certify class and to exclude an expert were heard; the court ultimately denies class certification.
Key procedural posture: defendants moved to exclude opinions of Sikorsky; court addressed Rule 23(a) and (b) requirements and Daubert/merits considerations limited to class-certification relevance.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the class is ascertainable and numerosity is satisfied	Class definable by model/coil type from 2006–present; large class via warranty databases.	Class is overly broad, including non-exposed members and condenser coils; ascertainability challenged.	Class not properly ascertainable; issues of exposure/cohesion undermine certification.
Whether common questions predominate under Rule 23(a) and (b) for California consumer claims	Common questions include defect propensity, knowledge of defects, and materiality; warrantably resolvable on a class-wide basis.	Individualized exposure and materiality predominate; defects and damages vary by class member.	Predominance not satisfied for FAL/UCL/CLRA; individualized issues predominate over common ones.
Whether Harlan and the Grosses are adequate and typical class representatives	Harlan has stood to litigate and is adequate; Grosses’ claims align with class theory.	Grosses lack standing (condenser coil, not evaporator coil) and thus are not typical/adequate; Harlan’s standing questioned but found adequate.	Harlan is adequate and typical; Grosses are not adequate or typical representatives; thus undermines typicality/adequacy.
Whether CLRA/FAL/UCL claims can be certified on a class basis given materiality and exposure issues	California consumer protection claims are suitable for class treatment; materiality can be established classwide.	Materiality varies by consumer; exposure to misrepresentations is not uniform; thus no class-wide proof.	Materiality and exposure issues prevent class certification under 23(b)(3) for CLRA/FAL/UCL.
Whether implied warranty and MMWA claims can be certified on a class basis	Warranties and MMWA claims are subject to common questions about defects and disclosures.	Manifestation of defect and causation are individualized; few if any class members have viable warranty claims.	Implied warranty and MMWA claims fail to meet predominance and certification is denied.

Key Cases Cited

Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (Supreme Court 2011) (class certification requires more than mere pleading; merits considerations limited)
Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (Supreme Court 1997) (clarifies Rule 23 analysis and predominance considerations)
In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (California Supreme Court 2009) (classwide reliance proof in California consumer protection claims)
Keegan v. American Honda Motor Co., 284 F.R.D. 522 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (exposure to representations necessary for UCL/CLRA class certification)
Cohen v. DIRECTV, Inc., 178 Cal. App. 4th 966 (Cal. App. 4th 2009) (common issues predominate when class members were exposed to similar representations)
Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (Supreme Court 2013) (predominance requires cohesive, class-wide damages theory)
Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC, 617 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2010) (defect-certification considerations without per se rule)
Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (Supreme Court 1982) (class-action standards and merits-issues interplay)
Mirkin v. Wasserman, 5 Cal.4th 1082 (California Supreme Court 1993) (reliance and materiality considerations in omissions cases)