Tait v. BSH Home Appliances Corp.
289 F.R.D. 466
C.D. Cal.2012Background
- Plaintiffs sue BSH Home Appliances for a defective-washer design causing BMFO and nondisclosure of that defect.
- Plaintiffs seek five classes across California, Illinois, Maryland, and New York, plus an Illinois SOL Class for prior purchases.
- Defendants moved to exclude two experts (Yang, Clark); Plaintiffs moved for class certification under Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3).
- Court grants in part class certification; finds five classes meet Rule 23(a) except Tait is not typical for the entire Illinois Class.
- Court applies a tailored Daubert standard at the certification stage and rejects full Daubert for evaluating expert testimony at this stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 23(a) typicality across classes | Is typicality satisfied for named plaintiffs across five classes? | Tait is atypical for the Illinois Class; others are not. | Five classes mostly typical; Tait typical only for Illinois SOL Class; Illinois Class may require substitute representative. |
| Rule 23(a) numerosity, commonality, and adequacy | Classes are numerous, share common questions, and have adequate representatives and counsel. | No sufficient common questions or adequacy arguments outside Rule 23 analysis. | All five classes meet numerosity and commonality; adequacy of named plaintiffs and counsel is satisfied. |
| Rule 23(b)(3) predominance and superiority | Common questions about BMFO propensity, knowledge, and omissions predominate; class is superior. | Consumer-misuse defenses and individualized inquiries may predominate. | Predominance satisfied for all Five Classes; class action is superior method. |
| California CLRA/FAL/UCL viability and Judkins test | Omissions and misleading practices are proven by common evidence; Judkins framework supports duty to disclose. | Exclusive knowledge issues and reliance concerns undermine certification. | Judkins framework supports common proof; no fatal predominance issues; California class certified. |
| Illinois SOL Class viability and amendment option | Some Illinois class members may be subject to tolling issues; propose Illinois SOL Class or substitute representative. | Atypicality and timing defenses challenge certification of Illinois Class. | Illinois SOL Class compatible with typicality; leave to amend to substitute a representative for entire Illinois Class. |
| Expert testimony at class certification (tailored Daubert standard) | Daubert full review is not required at certification; tailored Daubert suffices for Rule 23 analysis. | A full Daubert analysis should apply to expert testimony at certification. | Court adopts tailored Daubert standard; denies motions to exclude Clark and Yang on Rule 23 grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (Daubert at certification stage discussed in dicta; governs class action standards)
- In re Whirlpool Corp. Front-Loading Washer Prods. Liab. Litig., 678 F.3d 409 (6th Cir. 2012) (affirmed tailored Daubert at certification; common proof in design-defect cases)
- Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover North Am., LLC, 617 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2010) (permitted class certification with common design defect; rejected reliance on consumer-misuse defenses)
- Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Ellis II), 657 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2011) (tailored Daubert standard; confirms court may assess reliability for Rule 23, not merits)
- Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Dukes II), 603 F.3d 571 (9th Cir. 2010) (adopts tailored Daubert approach; class-certification stage reliability inquiry)
- Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Dukes III), 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (Supreme Court decision on class certification; discusses Daubert dicta)
- In re Zurn Pex Plumbing Products Liab. Litig., 644 F.3d 604 (8th Cir. 2011) (endorsed focused/-tailored Daubert analysis at certification stage)
- Keegan v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 284 F.R.D. 504 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (certification of UCL/CLRA/California-related class; common proof of materiality)
- Parkinson v. Hyundai Motor Am., 258 F.R.D. 580 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (implicit warranty and consumer-protection class action context)
- McAulay v. Collins, 202 Cal.App.4th 249 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (California appellate discussion of CLRA reliance and omissions)
- Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012) (presumption of reliance not available where disparate information viewed)