Larry Butler v. Sears, Roebuck & Company, 727 F.3d 796

Background

Two putative class actions alleging defects in Kenmore washing machines: a "mold" defect (machines accumulate mold and emit odors) and a "control‑unit" defect (units misdetect errors and shut machines down).
Classes assert breach‑of‑warranty claims under six states' laws; class membership and claims differ between the two actions.
District court denied certification for the mold class and granted certification for the control‑unit class; this court reversed the denial and affirmed the grant.
Supreme Court vacated and remanded for reconsideration in light of Comcast v. Behrend, prompting review whether Comcast affects class certification here.
Sears relied on post‑certification evidence (design changes, variation across models, and variable incidence of mold) and argued Comcast requires stricter predominance/damages analysis; plaintiffs argued Comcast is distinguishable.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Comcast v. Behrend precludes certification because damages must be tied to a single class‑wide theory	Comcast is distinguishable; damages here flow from the same class‑wide harms (mold or control‑unit defect)	Comcast requires that class‑wide damages be shown to stem from the common theory; certification should be revisited	Comcast does not defeat certification because plaintiffs seek damages tied to the single common injuries alleged in each class
Whether common issues predominate under Rule 23(b)(3) given model differences and varying severity across models	Liability (defect) is a single common issue that can be resolved class‑wide; damages can be individualized later or via subclasses	Model/design variation and varying incidence mean individual issues may predominate	Predominance is qualitative; common liability questions predominate and subclasses can address variation
Proper role of damages proof at the certification stage (must class‑wide damages be proven now?)	District court need not resolve individual damages at certification; liability can be decided class‑wide with later individual damages proceedings	Comcast emphasizes rigorous predominance inquiry and requires class‑wide damages methodology at certification	Holding permits certification focused on common liability; class‑wide damages proof can be deferred where liability is common and individual damages are manageable post‑liability
Whether efficiency alone justifies certification	Class action is the efficient mechanism for widespread small harms; efficiency supports predominance where common liability exists	Efficiency cannot substitute for predominance and correct damages linkage (per Comcast)	Efficiency is a relevant factor but does not replace the predominance inquiry; here it supports class treatment when common liability exists

Key Cases Cited

Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013) (class certification requires damages attributable to the class‑wide theory of liability)
Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Ret. Plans & Trust Funds, 133 S. Ct. 1184 (2013) (predominance not met if individual questions overwhelm common ones)
Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (common issues may justify class treatment when central to validity of each claim)
Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) (predominance tests whether classes are sufficiently cohesive for representative adjudication)
Messner v. Northshore Univ. HealthSys., 669 F.3d 802 (7th Cir. 2012) (distinguishing common questions from common answers; damages need not be identical)
McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 672 F.3d 482 (7th Cir. 2012) (Rule 23(c)(4) allows class‑wide liability determinations with individual damages proceedings)
In re Whirlpool Corp. Front‑Loading Washer Prods. Liab. Litig., 678 F.3d 409 (6th Cir. 2012) (upheld certification of a front‑loading washer mold class; later remanded in light of Comcast)
Carnegie v. Household Int’l, Inc., 376 F.3d 656 (7th Cir. 2004) (discusses efficiencies of class actions for many small claims)