## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 1590 S T EV EN J. T H OR OG OO D , i n d ivid u ally an d on be h alf o fa l l o the r s s i mi l a r l y s i t ua t e d, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. S EARS, R OEB UCKAN D C OMPAN Y, D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant
.
A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 06 C1999

—H arry D . L einenw eber, Judge
.
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 15, 2008

— D ECIDED O CT OB ER 28, 2008

Befo re P OSNER, K ANN E , a nd E VANS, C ircu it Judges . P OSNER, Cir cu i tJudge

. T he pl ai nt i ff, a Te nne ss ea n, bou gh t a K en m ore-bran d clothes d ryer fr om Sears Ro e b uc k( Ke nmo r e i s a S e a r s b r a nd n a me)

. T he wo r ds “s ta inless s te el ” wer e i m pr i nt ed o n the dr y er, a nd po i nt o fs al e adv er ti singe xpl ai ne d tha t th is m eanttha t th e drum i n w hi ch the cl othe s a re dri ed i ns id e the dry erwas m ad e o f st ain les s s te el. T h e p lain tiff s ay s h e t h ou gh t it m eant that th e drum was m ade ent irelyof st ain les s s te el.2 N o. 08

- 1590 Parto fthe f ro nt o fthe drum , a pa rt t h e user w oul d see only if he cr an ed hi s he ad i ns i de th e dr um , i s m ade of a cer am i c- coa ted “m ild ” s tee l, wh i ch i s no t s tai nl ess st eel because i t doe sn’ t co ntai n chrom iu m ; st ai nl ess st eeli s a s t e e l a l l o y th a t i s a t l e a s t 1 1

. 5 p e r c e n t c h r o mi u m . The pl aint i ffa l l eg es tha t the mil d- st ee l pa r t o fthe dr um rus ted and stained the cloth es th at he dried i n h is dryer. H e fi led th is cl ass ac tion s u it in fede ral d istri ct cou rt on be hal fo fhi m sel fand the othe r pu rchas er s, sca tte re d ac ro ss 28 st at es p lu s t h e D ist ric t o fC olu m b ia, of th e h alf m i l l i o n o r s o Ken m o r e dr y er s adv er ti sed as c o nt ai ni ng sta i nl ess st eeldrum s. H e cl ai m s that the sa l e o fa dryer s o a dv e r t i s e d i s de c e pt i v e u nl ess the dr um i s ma de en ti r el y o fs ta i nl es s st ee l, s i nce ifit is no t i t m ayr us t an d cause ruststai ns on the c l othe s i n the dryer

. H i s i nd i vi du al cl ai m i s that the r epres entat i on t h at t he dry erco ntai ned a s tai nl ess st eeldrum vi ol ate d the Tenness ee Consum er Pro tect ion A c t, Tenn. Code. A nn. §§ 47

- 18- 101 et seq
. The Ac t p rovi des i n pe r tine ntpa r t th at“ an y pe r so n who su ffer s a n as c er ta in ab le los s o f m on ey or p ro p er ty , rea l, perso nal, o r m i xed, or any other ar ti cl e, co m m odi ty, o r thi ng o fval ue wh er eve r si tuate d, as a r esul t o fthe u se or empl o y men tb y a no the r p e r s o n o fa n un f a i r o r de c e pt i ve act orprac ti ce decl ar ed to be unlawfulby this part, m ay b rin g an ac tio n in d ivid u ally to re c ov er ac tu al d am ag es .” Id

. , § 4 7- 18

- 10 9(a)( 1)

. The mem be r s o fthe c l as s th atthe p l a i n t i ffr e p r e s e n t s a r e a l l e g e d t o h a v e s i mi l a r c l a i ms und ersi m i l ar l y worded sta te consum erpro tect i on sta tutes i n thei r own st ate s. A l though s om e m em ber s o f th e h u ge cla ss are cit ize n s o ft h e s ta te s o f w h ich Sea rs is a corp orate citizen (N ew York an d I lli nois), so that diversit y of c itiz en sh ip is n ot c o m p l et e, th e s u it p ro p er lyN o. 08

- 1590 3 i nvoke d fe deralj uri sdic tio n under the Cl ass A cti on Fai rnes s A c t, 28 U
. S. C. §§ 1332 ( d), 14 53, 17 11- 1715 , si nce th e amoun t i n c o nt r o ve r sye xc ee ds $5 mil l i o n. The dist ri ct c ourtcer ti fi ed the c l ass , and w e hav e a ccepted th e defen dan t’ s appe alf r o m the cl as s ce r ti fi ca ti o n. F ed. R. C iv. P. 23(f)

. The c l as s ac ti o n i s ani ng en i o us de vi ce f o r e co no m i zi ng on the expense ofl i ti gat i on a n d enabl i ng sm al l cl ai m s t o be li tigated

. Th e tw o poin ts are closely r elated

. I f every sm al l cl ai m had t o be l i ti gat ed separ ate l y, the vi nd i cati on o fsm al l cla im s w oul d be r ar e. The fi xed cost s o f litig at i o n m a k e itim p os sib le t o litig at e a $5 0 c laim ( our guess

— ther e i s no ev i dence

— ofwh at the a ver age cl a i m o f a memb e r o f the pl a i nt i ff’ s c l a s s i n thi s cas e m i g h t b e wo r th ) a t a c o s t th a t wo u l d n o t e x c ee d t he val ue o fthe cl ai m by m any t i m es. But the cl ass act i on d ev ice h as its d ow n sid e, or ra th e r d o w n sid es . Th er e is fi rs t o fal l a m uch gr eat erco nfl i ct o fi nter estbet w een th e m em ber s o fthe cl ass and the cl ass l aw yer s than th ere is betw een an ind ivi d ua l clien t and his l aw yer. The cl ass m em ber s a re i nter est ed i n re l i eff orthe cl ass but the l a wy e r s a r e i nt e r e s t e d i n the i r f e e s , a nd the c l ass m em ber s’ st ake s in the l i ti gat i on a re to o sm al l to m oti vate them to su pervi se the l aw yer s i n an e ff or t t o m ake sure that the l aw yer s w i l l act i n thei r b es t in ter est s. Sa ylo rv . L i nd sley, 45 6 F

. 2d 896, 90 0- 01 ( 2d Cir

. 19 72) ( F r i en dl y , J
. ) ; se e a l so Sus anP. Kon i ak& Geo r g e M
. Co he n, “U nd erCl oako fS ett l em ent, ” 8 2 V a . L. R ev . 105 1, 1053

- 57 (1996) (d escribing th e class action as “law yer self

de a l i ngo n a g r a nd s c al e, ” id

. at10 53) ; J onathan R. M acey & G eo ffre y P . M iller, “T h e P lain tiff ’ s A tt or n ey ’s R ole in4 N o. 08

- 1590 Clas s Ac tio n and Deri vati ve Lit i gat i on, ” 5 8 U . Ch i. L. Rev

. 1, 22-26 (1991). T h e d efe n d a n ts in c las s a c tio n s a re int er es te d in m in imi z i n g th e s u m o f th e d a ma g e s th e y p a y th e c l as s an d th e f ee s the y pa y the c l as s co uns el, a nd s o the y a r e wi l l i ng to tra d e s m all d am ag es for h igh at to rn ey s’ fees , esp ec ially sinc e, a s Judge F r i en dl y puti t, “ a j ui cyb i r d i n the ha nd is w or th m or e t h an th e v i s i o n o f a m u c h larg er on e in the b ush, at tai nabl e o nl y a fterye ar s ofeff or t no t curr entl y com pensated and pos sibl y a m i ra ge. ” All eghan y C orp. v . Kirby, 33 3 F
. 2d 327, 34 7 ( 2d Cir

. 19 64) ; se e a l so Br uce L. H ay, “Asy m m et r i c Re war ds: W hy Cl ass A ct i o ns ( M ay) S ett l e f orToo Li ttl e, ” 4 8 H a st ings L.J
. 47 9, 48 5- 89 ( 1997 ) ; Bruce L. H ay & Davi d Ros en b er g, “ ‘ Sweethear t’ and ‘Bl ackm ai l ’ S ett l em en ts i n Cla ss A cti ons, ” 7 5 N o tre D a m e L. R ev. 1377, 13 89-92 (2000)

. The r esul t o fthes e i ncenti ves i s t o f or ge a co m m unity ofinte re st between cl ass co uns el, who co nt r o l the pl ai nt i ff’ s si de o fthe c as e, a nd the defe nd ants. (Fo r a notabl e exam ple , se e R eynolds v. B ene fi

ci al Nat i onal Bank, 2 88 F .3d 27 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02) ; se e a l so M a rs Steel C o rp. v. C o ntin enta l Illino is Na tio na l B a nk& Trust Co

. , 8 34 F
. 2d 67 7, 6 81

- 82 ( 7th C i r . 1 98 7)

. ) The j udg e who pr es i des o ve r the c l as s action and musta ppr o ve a ny se tt l ementi s ch ar g ed wi thr es po ns ibi l i tyf o r pre ve nt i ng the c l ass l aw yer s fro m se l l i ng o ut the cl ass , but i t i s a r es po ns ibi l i tydi ffi cul t to di scharge whenthe j udg e co nfro n ts a p h ala n x of co llu d in g c ou n se l. A fu rther probl em with the cl ass act i on i s the enhanced risk ofcostly error. “W he n en orm ou s con seq ue nc es tu rn o n the c o r r ec t r es o l ut i o n o fa co m pl ex f ac tu alque st i o n, theN o. 08

- 1590 5

r i sk o f e r r o r i n h a v i n g i t d e c i d e d o n c e a n d f o r a l l by o ne tr i ero ff act ra therthan l ett i ng a conse nsus em er ge f ro m seve ra l tr i al s m ay be undue. ” M ej dre ch v . M et -Co il Sy stem s C o rp . , 31 9 F
. 3d 910, 91 2 ( 7th C ir. 20 03) ; se e a l so C asta n o v. Ame r i c an To b ac c o Co

. , 8 4 F
. 3d 73 4, 746 ( 5th Cir. 19 96 ) ; La nc e P. M cMil l i an, “ The Nui sa nc e S et tl ement

‘ Pro bl em , ’ ” 3 1 Am
. J
. Tr i al Advoc

. 22 1, 25 2- 53 ( 2007 ) ; J eff re y W

. S tem pel, “Cl ass A cti ons and Li m i ted Vis i on, ” 8 3 Was h. U. L
. Q. 11 27, 12 13- 14 ( 2005 ). S up pose a co m pany i s s ued i n a num ber o f d i ff er ent c ase s f orse l l i ng a defe cti ve p ro d u c t. I t wins som e o fthe case s a nd l ose s s om e, so th atth e a g g r e g a t e o u t c o me i s a f a i r r e fl e c t i o n o ft he unc ertainty o fthe pl ai nt i ff s’ c l ai m s. Butwhenthe centr ali ssue in a c ase i s g i ven cl ass tr eat m ent a nd so re sol ved by a s i ngl e trie r off act, a tr i albec om es a r ol l o f the di ce; a si ngl e thro w will d ete rm i ne the o utcom e o f a l a r g e n u mb e r o fse pa r a t e c l a i ms

— th er e i s no a ve r ag i ng ofdi ver gent re sp onses fro m a num bero ftr i er s o ff act havi ng di ff er ent abi l i ti es, pri or s, and bi ase s. T h e r i s ki s as y mme t r i c w h e n th e n u mb e r o fc l a i ms agg re gat ed i n the cl ass acti on i s s o gr eatthatan a dvers e ver dictwould push the defendant i nto b an kr up tcy, f or then the defendant w i l l be un d er grea t pr ess ure to se tt le e ve n if th e m er its of th e c as e a re sl i g h t
. In re R ho nePoul e ncRor e r, Inc . , 51 F. 3d 1293, 1298-9 9 ( 7 t h Cir. 1995); H ay, “ ‘ Sweethear t’ and ‘Bl ackm ai l ’ S ett l em ents i n Cla ss A cti ons, ” sup ra , a t1 3 9 1

- 9 2 ; Ba r r y F
. McNe i l & Be th L. Fan c sal, “M ass Tor ts and C l ass A cti ons: Fa ci ng I ncre ase d Sc ru tin y,” 16 7 F .R .D . 483 , 489 -90 (19 96 ). I t is tru e t h at in pri nci ple a n d o ften in pract i ce, shar ehol ders w hose shar es i n a par ti cul arco m pany ar e par t o fa dive rs i fi ed6 N o. 08

- 1590 p ortfol io of securi ties are i nd ifferent to th e fortun es of a p ar ti cul arst ocki n thei r port f ol i o. But cor pora te m anagers

— the s hare hol ders’ i m perfect age nts

— are not i nd if

f er ent t o bankr up tcy and so they ar e un w illing to bet th eir co m p an y on th e o u tc om e o f a tr ial. T h is, h ow ev er , i s n ot su c h a c as e, as th e a gg re ga te cla im s a re w ell w ith in Se ar s Roe buck’ s abi l i ty to pay. The r e i s st i l l a no th erdo wnsi de to the c l as s ac ti o n, a nd i t i s wel l i l l ustrat ed by thi s ca se. I t i s the te nd ency, wh en the c l ai m s i n a federa l cl ass a c tio n a re bas ed on s tat e law , t o u n d er m in e fe d er alis m . In re B ridg eston e/Fireston e, Inc ., 28 8 F .3d 10 1 2 , 102 0-2 1 (7 th C ir. 20 02 ); In re R ho nePoul e ncRor e r, Inc ., sup ra , 51 F .3d at13 00 -02 ; Elizab e t h M

. v. M o nten ez , 458 F.3d 779 , 788 (8th C ir. 2006). O ur plaintiff w an ts to li tigate in a si ng le fed eral dis t r ict cou rt half a m i l l i on cl aim s w reste d fr om the contr olo fthe cour ts of th e 29 j ur i sdi ct i o ns i n whi chtho se c l ai m s ar o se a nd the l aws o fw hich go ve r n the c l ai m an ts ’ e nt i tl ementt o a nd sc op e o f relie f. Th e in st r u c t i o n s t o t h e jur y on th e la w it i s t o a pp l y wi l l b e a n a mal g a m o fthe c o ns ume r p r ote cti on l aw s o fthe 29 j uri sdic ti ons, and proc eduralr ule s by w hi ch part i cul arj uri sdic ti ons expand o r contr act re l i ef w i l l be i gn or ed. The Tennesse e Consum erPro tect i on Act, for ex am p le, d oe s no t au th or ize c las s a c tio n s. Wal ke rv. Sun r i s ePont i ac - GM C Truck, Inc . , 2 4 9 S

. W. 3 d 3 0 1 ( T en n. 2008 ). S ea r s ar g ue s th at th e Te nne ss ee r ul e pr ec l udes the m ai ntenance of the prese nt case as a cl ass acti on. T h at is w ro ng. The pro cedure i n d i ver si ty sui ts i s g ove rned by f edera l l aw . W hat i s t rue i s tha t so m e proceduralr ule sN o. 08

- 1590 7

ar e intended to i m ple m ent su b stanti ve pol i cy, and such r u les d o c on tr ol in d ive rs ity ca se s. T h e c lea re st ex am p le i s th e par o l e vi den ce ru le ofc o nt r ac t l aw. Anothe r i s th e co nt r ac t do ct r i ne o f“ m en d the ho ld,” w hi chl i m i ts the rig h t ofthe defe nd ant i n a b re ach o fco ntra ct s uitto chan g e hi s defen se i n the c o ur se o fl i ti g at i o n a nd i s th us a f ac eto fthe do ctri ne o fg o o d- f ai thpe r f o r m an ce o fc o ntr ac ts
. H a rbo r Ins. Co
. v. C o ntin enta l B a nkC o rp . , 92 2 F
. 2d 357, 36 4- 65 (7th C ir
. 1 99 0)

. W e g av e an o th ere xa m pl e i n S
. A. H ea ley Co

. v. M il w auk eeM et ropolit an Sewerage D is tr ict, 60 F
. 3d 30 5, 3 10 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 5) : “ S uppo se a state (as many sta tes have done) es tabl i shes a co m pu l sor y a rbitr ati on m ec ha ni sm i n m edi ca l mal pr ac ti ce c as es i n o r dert o c ut dow n on l i ti gat i on a nd r ed u c e m al pract i ce insurance prem i um s. The state ’ s g oal s a re subst anti ve

— desi gned to shape co nd uct o utsi de the c ou rt ro om and not j ust i m prove the accura cy orl ower the co st ofthe j ud i ci al proce ss

— th ou gh th e m ea n s a re p ro c ed u ra l. T h e g oa ls w oul d b e thw ar ted i f parti es havi ng acces s to a fe deral d ist ric t c ou rtu n d er th e d ive rs ity j u ris d i c t i on co u ld th u m b th eir n os es atth e c om p u lso ry p ro c ed u re .” In contr ast, the hol ding ofthe Wa lk erd eci si on that co nsum er prot ecti on s uit s ca n’tbe m ai ntai ned und erTennesse e law as class actions w as a “p lai n m ean ing” stat ut ory i nt er preta ti on a nd di d not s ugges t that the cl ass act i on h ad be en p re c l u d ed in c on su m er p ro te c tio n su its in o r der to adv an ce a su bs ta nt i ve po l i cy co nc erni ng c o nsu m erpr o te ct i o n. Stil l, Sears i s on to som eth ing. E ven thou gh the p lai nt iff ba se s hi s cl ai m , a nd tha t o fa ny o th erTe nnessean s who ha ppen to be m embe r s o f th e cl as s, o n Te nne ss ee l aw, he8 N o. 08

- 1590 and they ar e s eek i ng a bre adt h o f r el i efthatTennesse e does not off erthem i n i ts cour ts. M aybe thati s a defect of Tennessee l aw . B u t the purpos e o fthe dive rs i ty j uri sdict i on i s t o prot ect out- of

- sta te re si dents ag ai nst s tat e j udi ci al bi as i n f av o r o f r es i den ts ; i t i s no t to ex pand the r e l i e fo b t a i n a b l e u n d e r s t a t e l a w. T he co ncer ns thatwe have e xpresse d (which a re am plifi ed, and s up port ed by copi ous r efer ences, i n ouro pini on i n In r e Rh o n e - Po u l e n c, Inc ., sup ra , a nd i n s uchl at ero pi ni ons, apart f ro m thos e ci ted al re ad y, as Sz a bo v. B ridg epo rt M ac hi ne s , Inc ., 24 9 F .3d 67 2 (7 th C ir. 20 01 ); Blai rv. Equ i f ax Che ckSe r vi ce s , Inc ., 18 1 F .3d 8 32 , 834 (7t h C ir. 19 99 ); P a rker v. Tim e Wa rner E ntert a i n m e n t C o ., L.P
. , 33 1 F

. 3d 13, 22 ( 2d C i r . 2 0 0 3 ) , a n d N ew to n v . M errill Ly nc h, P ierce, Fenn er & Sm i t h, Inc . , 25 9 F
. 3d 154, 16 5- 68 (3d Ci r. 20 01) ) sugg est ca ut i o n i n cl as s ce r ti fi ca ti o n g en er al l y . And thi s ca se tur ns out to be a n ot ably weak ca nd i date f orcl ass tr eat m ent. A part f ro m the usual nega ti ves, t h er e a re no posi ti ves: not onl y do com m on i ssues ofl aw o r f act not predom i nate ove r the i ssues parti cul ar to each pu rchas e a nd purchase r ofa “sta in less st eel ” Kenm or e dry er, as Rule 23 ( b) ( 3) o f th e Fed e ral R ules of CivilProced ure requ ires, bu t the re ar e no co m m on iss ues o fl aw o r f act, so ther e would be no e conom i es f ro m cl ass act i on t re atm ent. T h e p lain ti ff cla im s t o b elie ve th at w h en a d ry er is l a b e l e d o r a d v e r t i s e d a s h a v i n ga s t a i n l e s s s t e e l d r u m, th i s i m pl i es , wi th o utmor e, tha t th e dr um i s 10 0 per ce nt sta i nl ess st eelbec ause othe rwis e i t m i ght r ust a nd cause rustst ai ns i n the c lot h es dri ed i n the dryer

. Do the o ther 50 0, 000 m em ber s o fthe cl ass bel i eve thi s? Doe s a nyon eN o. 08

- 1590 9 believe this besid es M r. Th orogood ? I t is n o t as i f Sears advert i sed the dryer s a s e l i m i nati ng a probl em o fr ust sta i ns by havi ng a sta i nl ess st eeldrum

. There i s no sugges ti on o fthat

. I t i s no t a s i fru st sta i ns were a co m m on concern of own er s o fcl othe s dry er s. There i s no sugges ti on o fthatei ther, and itcer tai nl y i s no t co m m on knowle dge. ( A t a rg u m en t the pl ai nti ff’ s l aw yer, sk epti cal th at m en ever ope rate clothe s d ryers

— od d ly, sin c e h is cl i ent doe s

— asked us to ask ou r w ives w he th er they are c oncer ned about rustst ai ns i n thei r dryer s. N one i s.) S ta i nl es s st ee l a pp li an ce s ar e co m m o n e ve n whe n n o i ssue ofr u st i s pre sente d. A por cel ai n si nk does notr ust, b u t m an y p eo p le p re fer a st ain les s s te el s in k, p ar tly b ecause i t doe s no t s tai n, part l y b ecause wh en pol i shed i t l o o k s be tt er( so m e p eop l e th i nk ) tha n po r ce l ai n, b ut not because theythi nk a si nk m ade of “m i l d” ste elco ate d w i th ce ra m i c would cause r ust s tai ns o n thei r dishe s; c e r a mi c do e s n’ t r us t
. I t i s t r ue tha t the dr um i s i ns i de the dr yer, and yo u j ust see it s s hi ny sur f ace w hen yo u open the door ; but the s am e is t rue ofdi shw asher s, m any o fwh i ch ar e s tai nl ess st eelto o. St ai nl ess st eelcl othe s dry er s ar e no t a dvert i sed as preve nti ng r u st s tai ns o n cl othe s. The o nl y r efer ence to rusti n Se ar s’ s m ar ket i ng that the pl ai nti ffr efer s t o orthat we ha ve f o und i s “S ta i nl es s S te elDr um resist s r us t an d won’ t ch i p, pe elo r s na gc l o th es . ” The o nl y thi ngpo te nti al l y de ce pti ve abo utthi s cl ai m i s th ata c er am ic c o at i ng on non- sta i nl ess st eeli s unl i kel y t o rust, chi p , p eel, o r sn ag clothe s either. B ut that i s not M r. Th or o good ’s com pla i nt. H i s co n c er ns ar e i dio syncr ati c. A further i ndi ca ti o n o fthi s i s th att o rally f el l o w vi ct i m s o fthe10 N o. 08

- 1590
sta i nl ess st eelKenm or es he post ed h is bad experi ence on a w eb si te ( “Fi ght Back. com , ” http: //fi ghtbac k. com ) th at advert i ses i tse l fas a “ c onduit f orco nsum erpro bl em sol vi ng and r edres s. ” N o one re sponded , as the “feed back ” fi l e o n the w eb si te i nvi tes per sons w ho a gr ee w i th a poste d com pla i nt to do. T h e e va lu at ion of th e c las s m em b er s’ c laim s w ill r equi r e i ndi vi dualhe ar i ng s. Ea chc l as s m embe r who w ants to pu rs ue r el i ef ag ain st Se ar s wil l have to te sti fy t o w hat he und er st an d s to be the m eani ng o fa l abelo r adv er ti se m en t th ati den ti fi es a c l o th es dr y era s co nta i ni nga s ta i nl es s st ee l dr um . Do es he thi nki t m ea ns th at th e d r u m i s 100 p ercen t stainless stee l bec au se oth erwi se hi s cl o th es mightha ve r us t st ai ns , o r do es he choos e s uch a dry erbec ause he l i kes st ai nless ste elf or re aso ns unrel ate d to rustst ai ns and i s i nd i ff er ent t o w he th er a par t o f th e dr um no t ea si l y se en i s m ade o f a diff er ent m ate ri al ? S ear s doe s no t ad ve rt i se i ts sta i nl ess ste eldrum as a prot ecti on a gai nst r ust s tai ns on cl othe s; i t doe s no t e ven s ay that the dr um i tse l fwil l notr ust

— on ly th at it “resists rus t.” A d vertisem en ts for clothe s d ryers adv er ti se a ho sto ffea tu r es that mightmatt ert o c o nsum er s, such a s pri ce, si ze, el ectr i calusag e, appeara nce, sp ee d , an d co n tr ol s , b u t n ot, as fa r as an yo n e in th is l i ti gat i on has sugg est ed except the pl ai nti ff, a voi dance ofcl othi ng st ai ns due to r ust. I n gr anti ng cl ass cer ti fi cati on, the dist ri ct j ud ge sai d that b e c a us e “ S e ar s m ar k e t e d i t s dry e r s o n a c l a s s wi de b a s i s . . . r e l i a nc e c a n b e p r e s ume d. ” R e l i a nc e o n wha t ? On sta i nl ess stee l pre venti ng r ust s tai ns o n cl othe s? S i nceN o. 08

- 1590 11

r us t st ai ns o n c l o th es d o no t appe art o b e o ne o fthe hazar ds of c l othe s dry er s, and si nce S ear s di d not advert i se i ts sta i nl ess st eeldrye rs as pre venti ng such sta i ns, the propos i ti on that the o therh alf m i l l i on buye rs , apartfro m T h or ogo od, shar ed hi s underst anding of Se ar s’ s re prese ntati ons and paid a prem i um to avo i d rust st ain s is, to p u t it m ild ly, im p lau sib le, a n d s o w ou ld re quir e i nd i vi du alhear i ngs t o ver i fy. A n ad d itio n al v ar iab le in th e c las s a c tio n ca lcu lu s is re lief. E ve n if so m e c on su m er s, like M r. T h or og oo d , w ou ld not pay a prem i um f ora sta i nl ess st eel d ru m thatwas not 100 perce nt st ai nl ess st eel, the am ount o fdam age s w i l l var y fro m co nsum erto co nsum er . S om e m ay ( though w e a re dubio us) hav e e xperi enced r ust s tai ns, o r be f e a r fu l o fe x p e r i e n c i n gth e m, a n d th e r e f o r e se e ka s d a mag es th e d iffer en c e be tw ee n th e res ale va lu e oft h e ir sta i nl ess st eeldrye r and w hat a new d ry erwould cos t. So m e m ay have bought a K en m or e a t a di sco unt and so en d ed u p p ay in g n o m or e t h an th ey w ou ld h av e p aid f o r a ma c h i n e w i th a p o r c e l a i n d r u m. An d s o me

—because the stai nl ess st eeldrum i s pack age d w i th o ther p re m iu m fea tu re s ra th er th a n o ffer ed as a se p ar at ely pri ced opti on

— m ay h av e in c u rre d n o d am ag es atall because o n the w hole they pre f erthei r sta i nl ess st eel dr y ert o a ny othe r dr y erthe y c o ul d b uy e ve n i fthe s ta i nl ess steelfeature i tse l fwas a neutr alo r eve n nega ti ve con side ration in the ir p urc ha sing d ecision. T he plaintiff i s se ek i ngo n b eh al fo fhi m se l fa nd the mem be r s o fthe cl ass actual dam age s, notst atuto rydam ages, wh i ch m ight not requ ire ind ivi d ua l p roof.12 N o. 08

- 1590 The di ffi cul tyo fde te rm i ni ngthe r el i eft o whi chthe i n d ivid u al c las s m em b er s a re en tit led , th ou gh se riou s, is not the dealbr eak er . I fi t were prove d that Xtho us an d buyer s o fKenm or es had been dece ive d , a se ttl em ent that provi ded ea ch w i th an am ount e qual to an es ti m ate o f the a ver age dam age s they ha d sustai ned w oul d be a se ns ibl e an d l eg al l y per m i ss ibl e al te r na ti ve t o r emi tt i ng all th e b u ye r s t o i n d ivid u al s u its ea c h of w h ich w ou ld co sto r der s ofmagn i tu de m o r e to l i ti g at e th anthe cl ai m s wo u ld b e worth to the pla i nti ff s. “Aggre gat e cl ass p roo fo fmone ta r y r el i efmay . . . b e ba se d o n s ampl i ng te c h ni ques o r othe r re aso nabl e e sti m ate s, under ac cepted rul es ofevi dence. ” 3 H erber t B. N ew ber g & A lba Conte , N e wbe rg on Cl as s Act i ons § 10. 3, p. 4 80 ( 4th e d. 2002 ) ; se e al so id ., § 1 0.5 ; Stew a rt v. G enera l M o to rs C o rp ., 54 2 F
. 2d 44 5, 45 2-5 3 (7 th C ir. 19 76 ); Un i t e d S t a t e s v. Ci tyo f Mi a mi, 19 5 F .3d 12 92 , 12 99 -13 00 (11 th C ir. 19 99 ); P et twa y v. A m er ic an Ca s tIr on PipeCo

. , 494 F.2d 211 , 259-6 3 ( 5 th Cir. 1974). The deal br eak eris the abse nce o fany re aso n to bel i eve that ther e i s a si ngl e underst andin g of the s i gni fi cance ofl abel i ng o r advert i si ng cl othe s dry er s a s co ntai ni ng a “s ta in les s s te el d ru m .” The dis tr i ct c ourti s i nstr ucted to decer ti fy the cl ass . R EVER S ED .

10- 28- 08