granted the motion. The court found that common issues predominated, and rejected FCA ’ s argument that individualized issues based on the defendants’ actual knowledge about the defect changed during the class period. The court determined that the plaintiffs sufficiently demonstrated that FCA knew the dangers of using ammonium nitrate for years prior to issuing a recall for the airbags. The court concluded that FCA ’ s alleged conduct was uniform with respect to all class members in that it never disclosed the Inflator Defect to consumers prior to the sale of the vehicles. Id. at *144-45. The court also determine the alleged conduct was material because a reasonable factfinder could infer that if consumers knew their vehicles contained defective airbags, they would not have made the purchase, or they would have paid less for their vehicles. Finally, the court found that a class action would be the superior method of adjudication because the fundamental elements of fraud are substantially similar from state to state, and the Inflator Defect was uniform across the vehicles. For these reasons, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. 2. Rulings Denying Class Certification Motions In the one appellate ruling on class certification in a products liability class action in 2023, the Sixth Circuit vacated the district court ’ s ruling granting class certification in Weidman, et al. v. Ford Motor Co., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 30548 (6th Cir. Nov. 16, 2023). The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant ’ s had a design defect in their F-150 pickup trucks from model years 2013 through 2018. The plaintiffs claimed that defective brake master cylinders, manufactured by Hitachi and installed by Ford, resulted in a brake system defect, which affected the trucks’ performance. The district court had certified state-wide classes to address three specific issues related to the alleged defect, including whether the trucks’ brake systems were defective, whether Ford had pre-sale knowledge of the defect, and whether concealed information about the defect would be material to a reasonable buyer. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit determined that the district court did not sufficiently analyze whether the commonality requirement was met and did not address Ford ’ s arguments regarding changes made by Hitachi to the brake cylinders. The Sixth Circuit indicated that the district court should have considered whether the changes made by Hitachi affected each theory. The Sixth Circuit also noted that the district court failed to thoroughly analyze Ford ’ s evidence regarding Ford ’ s knowledge of any defect and the materiality of that defect. The Sixth Circuit reasoned that the district court should have analyzed Ford ’ s evidence as to each alleged design defect. Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit vacated the district court ’ s ruling granting class certification. In Arnhold, et al. v. United States, 166 Fed. Cl. 499 (Fed. Cl. 2023), the plaintiffs, a group of property owners near Outlying Field Coupeville (OLF), filed a class action based on mass tort theories alleging that the U.S. Navy ’ s increased flight operations, particularly involving EA-18G Growler fighter jets, have constituted a taking of their property in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, and the court denied the motion. The OLF was used for Navy pilot training since 1943, including touch-and-go landings simulating aircraft carrier landings. In recent years, the Navy increased its operations, which the plaintiffs alleged was an unconstitutional taking of their properties. The court first determined that the plaintiffs met the numerosity requirement with an estimated class size of more than 2,600 residents in the affected area. The court found that there were common issues, such as whether the Navy increased flight operations, which could be resolved on a class-wide basis. However, the court opined that issues related to whether a taking occurred and the extent of damages were too individualized to be resolved as a class. The court also found that the claims of the proposed class representatives were not typical of those class members who asserted a takings claim based solely on noise, as the properties of the class representatives were directly below the flight path. The court also determined that managing the case as a class action would not be the fairest and most efficient method because individualized liability determinations were required such that the predominance requirement was not met. Therefore, the court concluded that a class action would not achieve economies of time, effort, and expense. For these reasons, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. In Barnes, et al. v. Dresser, LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135552 (W.D. La. Aug. 3, 2023), the plaintiffs in
8
© 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