In Re Whirlpool Corp. Front-Loading Washer Prods.
678 F.3d 409
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- Whirlpool appeals a district court's certification of an Ohio plaintiff liability class under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) in the Duets MDL.
- Named plaintiffs Glazer and Allison, Ohio residents, claimed mold/mildew in Duet front-loaders and insufficient disclosures.
- Class defined as current Ohio residents who bought specific Duet models for personal use in Ohio, with damages reserved for individual determination.
- Claims include tortious breach of warranty, negligent design, and negligent failure to warn; no class-wide damages determination.
- District court held prerequisites met; Whirlpool challenged on model diversity, design variations, and consumer usage as common questions.
- Court analyzes whether common design flaws and warnings issues yield predominance and superiority for a class action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Rule 23(a) satisfied for the Ohio class? | Glazer/Allison show numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy. | Whirlpool argues lots of models; no common liability. | No abuse; requirements met. |
| Do common questions predominate under Rule 23(b)(3)? | Common design flaws and warnings predominate over individual issues. | Individual damages and usage vary too much. | Predominance established; class appropriate. |
| Is the class conceptually appropriate given multiple platforms/models? | Common defects and uniform risk underlies liability. | Platform/model variation defeats commonality. | Not fatal; common issues prevail. |
| Did the court properly conduct a rigorous analysis at certification stage? | Court probed evidence beyond pleadings per Dukes. | Merits leakage into certification review remains improper. | Rigorous analysis conducted; proper under Dukes. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Am. Med. Sys., Inc., 75 F.3d 1069 (6th Cir. 1996) (abuse-of-discretion standard for Rule 23)
- Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2011) (rigorous analysis and predominance considerations)
- Behrend v. Comcast Corp., 655 F.3d 182 (3d Cir. 2011) (Behrend: merits cannot guide Rule 23 when not necessary)
- Gooch v. Life Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 672 F.3d 402 (6th Cir. 2012) (probing behind pleadings permitted for class certification)
- Daffin v. Ford Motor Co., 458 F.3d 549 (6th Cir. 2006) (common questions and predominance at certification)
- Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover North Am., LLC, 617 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2010) (injury at purchase can support certification where applicable)
- Montanez v. Gerber Childrenswear, LLC, No. CV09-7420, 2011 WL 6757875 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (injury through purchase price impairment supports standing)