braking, thereby leading to accidents. The plaintiffs further contended that Nissan was aware of the defect but failed to address it or inform consumers about the alleged defect. The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, and the court granted in part the motion. The plaintiffs sought certification of a class of current and former owners or lessees of affected Nissan vehicles. The court found that class certification requirements under Rule 23(a) were met, including numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. The court, however, determined that Rule 23(b)(2) certification for injunctive relief would not be appropriate due to individualized monetary damages, lack of standing for past purchasers, and ineffectiveness of proposed injunctive relief. The court granted the motion as to the plaintiffs’ various state- specific claims including implied warranty, breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, and fraudulent omission/concealment. The defendants argued that certification was inappropriate because the claims necessarily involved a focused look at each individual transaction to determine whether that specific transaction resulted in violation. The court found the argument unavailing because the pattern of each transaction was the same: i.e., the plaintiff purchased or leased a class vehicle from Nissan or an authorized dealer and each plaintiff received the same warranty. The court determined that these transactions were not so unique that individual questions would predominate over common issues. Id. at *30. Finally, the court considered the class definition and found that the class definition was both definite and relied upon objective criteria to determine membership, such that members of the class could be determined through purchase and leasing records maintained by the defendants. For these reasons, the court granted class certification of the state-specific claims and denied the motion as to the plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief. In one of the most significant product liability class certification rulings over the past year - Speerly, et al. v. General Motors, LLC, 343 F.R.D. 493 (E.D. Mich. 2023) - the plaintiffs filed several class actions alleging defective “shudder and shift” problems in the defendant ’ s 8L45 and 8L90 8-speed automatic transmissions used in cars sold between the 2015 and 2019 model years. Id. at 499. The plaintiffs alleged that the automatic transmissions in their vehicles occasionally will “slip, buck, kick, jerk and harshly engage,” which caused the vehicles to perform erratically and become unsafe to drive. Id. at 500. The plaintiffs filed several claims on behalf of putative classes, including the owners of thousands of vehicles that alleged their vehicles had defective transmissions, and the defendant refused to fix or replace them under its express warranty. The plaintiffs filed motions to certify 26 different state-wide classes, and the court granted the motions. The court found that the class clearly met the numerosity requirement, as there were more than 800,000 class vehicles. The court found that the commonality requirement was also met because all the plaintiffs alleged some type of warranty and consumer fraud claims. The court stated that even if the plaintiffs alleged a variety of different legal theories under 26 different state laws, they all related to claims of warranty and consumer fraud, and the proof of vehicle defect would be the same for all the claims. The court also reasoned that the vehicles were all covered by the same warranty, and thus, whether the transmissions were covered by the warranty would be a question common to all class members. The defendant argued that the plaintiffs’ damages plan to calculate damages on an average basis would be an individual determination for each class member such that class treatment would not be appropriate. However, the court concluded that the calculations need not be exact at the class certification stage, as long as the model to calculate the damages was consistent in establishing liability. The court thereby found that common issued predominated and that a class action would be the superior method of adjudication. Accordingly, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The plaintiffs in a multidistrict litigation proceeding entitled In Re Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135467 (S.D. Fla. June 20, 2023), alleged economic loss and personal injury linked to airbags manufactured by Takata Corp. and TK Holdings (“Takata”) and installed in vehicles, including those sold by FCA. The plaintiffs alleged that the FCA ’ s vehicles were equipped with Takata airbags containing the chemical ammonium nitrate, which created a small explosion to inflate the airbags during a crash.” Id. at *121. The plaintiffs contended that when exposed to high heat and humidity, the explosion is forceful and can cause significant injuries and even death (which they characterized as the Inflator Defect). The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification of common law fraud claims in multiple states. The court
7
© Duane Morris LLP 2024
Duane Morris Product Liability And Mass Torts Class Action Review – 2024
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online