663 F. App'x 576
9th Cir.2016Background
- Plaintiff Steve Doyle bought a replacement window regulator from Chrysler in Aug. 2009 for $100 and alleges Chrysler failed to disclose a defect affecting that regulator model and similar models. Doyle’s regulator did not fail, but he alleges many others did.
- Doyle obtained class certification for California owners/lessees of 2002–2007 Jeep Liberty vehicles who purchased or had installed a replacement regulator from Chrysler or authorized dealers during specified post-2009 date windows.
- Chrysler appealed the interlocutory class-certification order under Rule 23(f); the Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(e).
- The district court certified the class under Rule 23(b)(3); the Ninth Circuit reviewed whether Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) requirements were met.
- The Ninth Circuit held Doyle had Article III standing based on out-of-pocket expenditure but reversed the certification, finding predominance, typicality, and adequacy deficiencies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing | Doyle spent money he would not have spent but for nondisclosure, so he suffered economic injury. | Chrysler argued lack of injury/standing. | Doyle has standing; spending on a product due to nondisclosure suffices. |
| Rule 23(b)(3) predominance — damages model | Doyle proposed full or partial reimbursement of purchase price as classwide damages. | Chrysler argued damages are not measurable on a classwide basis per Comcast. | Reversed: Doyle’s partial-reimbursement approach lacks a classwide damage model and fails Comcast’s requirement. |
| Rule 23(a) typicality | Doyle’s claim represents class members who paid for regulators. | Chrysler noted class also includes persons who had regulators installed (did not pay), making claims divergent. | Doyle’s claim is not typical of non-paying class members. |
| Rule 23(a) adequacy | Doyle seeks reimbursement and can represent class. | Chrysler argued reimbursement damages conflict with interests of members who did not pay; those members prefer injunctive relief or future-repair remedies. | Doyle is not an adequate representative for class members who did not incur out-of-pocket expenses. |
Key Cases Cited
- Maya v. Centex Corp., 658 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2011) (standing where plaintiff spent money she would not have spent but for defendant’s conduct)
- Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (U.S. 2013) (predominance requires damages capable of measurement on a classwide basis)
- Jimenez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 765 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2014) (a damages methodology that cannot produce a classwide result cannot support certification)
- Leyva v. Medline Indus. Inc., 716 F.3d 510 (9th Cir. 2013) (damages model must measure only damages attributable to the liability theory and be administrable classwide)
- Pulaski & Middleman, LLC v. Google, Inc., 802 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2015) (example of a common methodology enabling classwide damages calculation)
- Vaquero v. Ashley Furniture Indus., Inc., 824 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2016) (individualized damage amounts do not defeat certification when a common methodology exists)