Gina Glazer v. Whirlpool Corporation
722 F.3d 838
| 6th Cir. | 2013Background
- Plaintiffs (Glazer and Allison) sued Whirlpool on behalf of Ohio purchasers of certain Duet front‑loading washers, alleging a common design defect caused biofilm accumulation that leads to mold, odors, and decreased product value; damages reserved for individual proof.
- The district court certified a Rule 23(b)(3) liability class limited to Ohio residents who purchased specified Duet models; it denied certification on an Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act claim.
- Whirlpool sought interlocutory review; the Sixth Circuit affirmed, the Supreme Court issued a GVR remand in light of Comcast v. Behrend, and the Sixth Circuit reconsidered whether Comcast altered its certification analysis.
- Factual record: Whirlpool internal documents and expert testimony indicated widespread customer complaints, internal recognition of design-related residue/biofilm problems across two related engineering platforms, and development/marketing of cleaning product Affresh™; Whirlpool made some later design changes but did not concede eradication of the issue.
- Whirlpool argued lack of commonality/predominance because (a) multiple platforms/models differ, (b) many owners never experienced mold, (c) consumer habits vary, and (d) damages are individualized; plaintiffs argued common liability issues (defect and failure to warn) predominate and damages can be handled individually.
- The Sixth Circuit denied Whirlpool’s motion to remand to the district court for reconsideration, conducted the Comcast‑informed analysis, and affirmed certification of a liability class only.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 23(a) commonality/typicality/adequacy exist for an Ohio class of Duet purchasers | Common liability questions—(1) whether Duet design causes biofilm/mold, and (2) whether Whirlpool failed to warn—are uniform and central to all class claims | Multiple models/platforms, differing consumer experiences/habits, and many non‑manifestation owners defeat commonality and typicality | Court: Commonality, typicality, and adequacy satisfied; central questions will generate common answers and named plaintiffs are typical and adequate representatives |
| Whether Rule 23(b)(3) predominance is met when damages and manifestation vary among class members | Liability questions are classwide and will "prevail or fail in unison"; damages may be reserved for individual determinations | Individual issues (manifestation, consumer habits, model differences) predominate and make class adjudication inappropriate | Court: Predominance satisfied for liability; class certified for liability only, with damages reserved for individual proceedings |
| Effect of Comcast v. Behrend on certification (must plaintiffs show classwide damages model tied to liability at certification?) | Comcast does not bar certification of a liability‑only class; Comcast rejects only certification where classwide damages model does not isolate damages from the certified liability theory | Comcast requires linking damages model to the certified liability theory and thus undermines certification here | Court: Comcast inapplicable to a liability‑only class; certification stands because court reserved damages for individualized proof |
| Whether district court should have been remanded to address Comcast first | Plaintiffs: Sixth Circuit should undertake Comcast analysis on record; GVR does not require remand | Whirlpool: Remand appropriate so district court can reconsider certification in first instance post‑Comcast | Court: Denied remand; exercised its appellate review and reaffirmed certification after Comcast analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (class certification requires common questions capable of classwide resolution)
- Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds, 133 S. Ct. 1184 (2013) (predominance focuses on common questions provable with common evidence; merits not to be decided at certification)
- Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013) (a damages model at certification must measure damages attributable to the specific, certified theory of liability)
- Gen. Tel. Co. of the Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (1982) (district courts may probe the pleadings and evidence when assessing Rule 23 prerequisites)
- Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156 (1974) (courts should not conduct extensive merits inquiries at certification)
- In re Am. Med. Sys., Inc., 75 F.3d 1069 (6th Cir. 1996) (distinguishing cases where many product variants and individualized medical histories defeat commonality)
- Butler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 702 F.3d 359 (7th Cir. 2012) (affirmed class reasoning in a similar front‑loading washer mold case)
- Daffin v. Ford Motor Co., 458 F.3d 549 (6th Cir. 2006) (class certification appropriate where a common defect question predominate despite inclusion of owners without manifested defects)