Opinion ID: 799220
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Commonality, typicality, and fair representation

Text: Rule 23(a)(2) requires plaintiffs to prove that there are questions of fact or law common to the class, and Rule 23(a)(3) requires proof that plaintiffs' claims are typical of the class members' claims. To demonstrate commonality, plaintiffs must show that class members have suffered the same injury. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. at 2551. Their claims must depend upon a common contention ... of such a nature that it is capable of classwide resolutionwhich means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke. Id. The court's inquiry focuses not on whether common questions can be raised, but on whether a class action will generate common answers that are likely to drive resolution of the lawsuit. Id. Commonality and typicality tend to merge because both of them serve as guideposts for determining whether under the particular circumstances maintenance of a class action is economical and whether the named plaintiff's claim and the class claims are so interrelated that the interests of the class members will be fairly and adequately protected in their absence. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. at 2551 n. 5. These two factors also tend to merge with the requirement of adequate representation, although the latter factor also brings into play concerns about competency of class counsel and any conflicts of interest. Id. Accordingly, we will consider these factors together. See Gooch, 672 F.3d at 429 (considering typicality and adequate representation together). Whirlpool contends that plaintiffs cannot show commonality because the Duets were built over a period of years on different platforms, there were approximately twenty-one different models manufactured during that time, and consumer laundry habits vary widely by household. Whirlpool also suggests that the district court erroneously identified the alleged design defect as the use of less and cooler water. The district court did not make the mistake that Whirlpool alleges. Whirlpool's own lead engineer stated that the Duets' use of less and cooler water, among other factors, encouraged mold growth. The district court well understood the proof to show that there were various alleged design defects in the Duets that allowed biofilm to collect and mold to grow. More importantly, the district court reached the conclusion that the issues relating to the alleged design defects and the adequacy of Whirlpool's warnings to consumers are likely to result in common answers, thus advancing the litigation. See Dukes, 131 S.Ct. at 2551; Gooch, 672 F.3d at 427. [T]here need only be one question common to the class[,] Sprague, 133 F.3d at 397, and [n]o matter how individualized the issue of damages may be, these issues may be reserved for individual treatment with the question of liability tried as a class action. Sterling v. Velsicol Chem. Corp., 855 F.2d 1188, 1197 (6th Cir.1988). Based on the evidentiary record, the district court properly concluded that whether design defects in the Duets proximately caused mold or mildew to grow and whether Whirlpool adequately warned consumers about the propensity for mold growth are liability issues common to the plaintiff class. These issues are capable of classwide resolution because they are central to the validity of each plaintiff's legal claims and they will generate common answers likely to drive the resolution of the lawsuit. Whirlpool asserts that proof of proximate cause will require individual determination, but the record shows otherwise. Whirlpool's own documents confirm that its design engineers knew the mold problem occurred despite variations in consumer laundry habits and despite remedial efforts undertaken by consumers and service technicians. Plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Gary Wilson, opined that consumer habits and the home environment in which a Duet sits could influence the amount of biofilm buildup, but those factors were not the underlying cause of biofilm buildup. Whirlpool contends that Dr. Wilson did not evaluate later design changes to the Duets to see if they rectified the mold problem. As we read the pertinent testimony and expert report, Dr. Wilson acknowledged that Whirlpool made some changes to the Access platform tub design, but there continued to be other areas in the machine that collected debris. He also examined a new Horizon platform washer and found that it still had cavities on the inside of the tub exposed to the water side, increasing the likelihood of biofilm collection. Dr. Wilson testified that even removing those cavities would not eliminate the biofilm problem. See Samuel-Bassett v. KIA Motors Am., Inc., 34 A.3d 1, 13 (Pa.2011) (rejecting claim that design changes defeated commonality and predominance where modifications did not significantly alter the basic defective design). Because the plaintiffs have produced evidence of alleged common design flaws in the Duet platforms, this case is dissimilar to In re Am. Med. Sys., 75 F.3d 1069, a case on which Whirlpool relies. In that case, the commonality factor was not satisfied because plaintiffs did not allege any particular defect common to all plaintiffs where there were at least ten different prosthesis implant models that had been modified over the years. Id. at 1080-81. The plaintiffs' medical histories were also at issue and proof varied from plaintiff to plaintiff because complications from an implanted prosthesis could be due to a variety of factors, including surgical error, improper use of the device, anatomical incompatibility, and infection, among others. Id. at 1081. A similar situation is not presented here. As the plaintiffs argue, this case is more like Daffin, 458 F.3d at 550, in which the plaintiff class alleged that a defective throttle body assembly installed in vehicles caused the accelerators to stick. In this case, the plaintiffs established the existence of common issues among class members that warrant certification of a liability class. In addition, Glazer and Allison are typical of the class members. They purchased Whirlpool washing machines, used their washers for domestic purposes, and experienced problems with mold despite remedial efforts. While Allison may have followed Whirlpool's suggested care instructions more conscientiously than Glazer did, Whirlpool's own internal documents point to the conclusion that, no matter what consumers did or did not do, the mold problem persisted. Whirlpool's own engineers recognized that the Duets provided the ideal environment for bacteria and mold to flourish. The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Glazer and Allison are typical of class members, and that they and their class counsel will adequately represent the class. Whirlpool insists that the class as certified is overly broad because it includes Duet owners who have not experienced a mold problem. Additionally, Whirlpool argues, Glazer and Allison are not typical of consumers swept into the class who have had no problems and are pleased with their Duets. The liability class as defined is not too broad. What is necessary is that the challenged conduct or lack of conduct be premised on a ground that is applicable to the entire class. Gooch, 672 F.3d at 428 (internal quotation marks omitted). Class certification is appropriate if class members complain of a pattern or practice that is generally applicable to the class as a whole. Even if some class members have not been injured by the challenged practice, a class may nevertheless be appropriate. Id. (quoting Walters v. Reno, 145 F.3d 1032, 1047 (9th Cir.1998)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Additionally, the class plaintiffs may be able to show that each class member was injured at the point of sale upon paying a premium price for the Duet as designed, even if the washing machines purchased by some class members have not developed the mold problem. In Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover North Am., LLC, 617 F.3d 1168, 1173 (9th Cir.2010), a car manufacturer successfully argued before the district court that class certification was inappropriate because the named class plaintiffs did not prove that an alignment geometry defect causing premature tire wear manifested in a majority of the class members' vehicles. The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded for class certification, holding that proof of the manifestation of a defect is not a prerequisite to class certification[,] and that individual factors may affect premature tire wear, [but] they do not affect whether the vehicles were sold with an alignment defect. Id. Similarly, in Stearns v. Ticketmaster Corp., 655 F.3d 1013, 1021 (9th Cir.2011), the Ninth Circuit concluded that the plaintiff class sufficiently established injury for standing purposes by showing that [e]ach alleged class member was relieved of money in the transactions. See also Montanez v. Gerber Childrenswear, LLC, No. CV09-7420, 2011 WL 6757875, -2 (C.D.Cal. Dec. 15, 2011) (holding injury shown where class members spent money on defective infant clothing that was less valuable than Gerber represented it to be); Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4th 310, 120 Cal.Rptr.3d 741, 246 P.3d 877, 895 (2011) (observing diminishment in value of an asset purchased by the consumer is sufficient to establish injury). The Third Circuit recently observed that Rule 23(b)(3) does not ... require individual class members to individually state a valid claim for relief and the question is not what valid claims can plaintiffs assert; rather, it is simply whether common issues of fact or law predominate. Sullivan v. DB Invs., Inc., 667 F.3d 273, 297, 305 (3d Cir.2011) (en banc) (reviewing settlement classes). These cases support the plaintiffs' position that the class as certified is appropriate.