Products Liability & Mass Torts Class Action Review – 2025

the Ninth Circuit explained that proof of the defect was a merits inquiry that was not necessary to prove at the class certification stage. The Ninth Circuit also ruled that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the materiality and reliance elements of the plaintiffs’ consumer protection claims raised common issues supporting class certification. Id. at *4. The Ninth Circuit stated that the district court did not abuse its discretion in accepting the plaintiffs’ unperformed damages model to support class certification because the model would be able to reliably calculate damages in a manner common to the class at trial. Id. at *5. Finally, the Ninth Circuit agreed with the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs’ benefit-of-the-bargain theory of injury affected the entire class such that certification was appropriate. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling granting the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. A resident of Michigan filed a class action in Riddell, et al. v. General Motors LLC , Case No. 20-CV-254 (E.D. Mo. May 9, 2024), after he purchased a new 2012 Chevrolet Silverado with a Generation IV 5.3 Liter V8 Vortec 5300 engine in Ballwin, Missouri, in 2012. The plaintiff claimed that Gen IV engines had defective piston rings leading to excessive oil consumption, which reduced engine lubricity, thereby causing malfunctions. The plaintiff contended that GM was aware of this defect but failed to disclose it to purchasers of vehicles containing the Gen IV 5.3L engines and did not offer an effective repair. The court previously had granted class certification, and GM argued that the plaintiff’s claim was barred by the five-year statute of limitations for actions created by statute and fraud under Missouri law, citing that the plaintiff purchased his vehicle in September 2012 but did not file his complaint until November 2020. This was more than eight years later, exceeding the five-year limit. Under the fraud statute, the limitations period begins when the plaintiff discovers the facts constituting the fraud or when they should have discovered it through due diligence. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff was aware of low oil levels soon after purchase, but failed to prove that he knew GM was knowingly selling defective vehicles. The court noted that the plaintiff only realized he had a claim after seeing an article about similar litigation. For claims under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA), the plaintiff must show a purchase for personal use, an ascertainable loss, and that the loss resulted from an unlawful act. The defendant contended that the plaintiff could not prove his vehicle was defective or that he would not have purchased it if aware of the defect. However, the court found that the plaintiff had provided sufficient testimony regarding his decision to buy the vehicle. The defendant also argued that there was no duty to disclose unless there was a direct relationship between the parties, but the court found that the MMPA does not require such a relationship. Furthermore, the plaintiff did not need to buy the vehicle directly from GM to maintain his MMPA claim. Regarding the issue of GM’s knowledge of the piston ring defect at the time of sale, the court concluded that while GM had made design changes to address oil consumption, the plaintiff had not provided enough evidence to show GM knew these changes would be ineffective at the time of sale. Thus, the court granted summary judgment for claims related to vehicles purchased before October 2012, which affected the lead plaintiff, Riddell, who bought his truck in September 2012. Consequently, the court decided to decertify the class and requested further briefing on a new class representative and the viability of the case moving forward. The court granted class certification in part in Lessin, et al. v. Ford Motor Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203468 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2024). The plaintiffs in Lessin were owners of Ford F-250 and F-350 trucks from model years 2005 to 2019 and filed a class action against Ford, alleging that the vehicles suffer from a dangerous defect in their suspension and steering systems. This defect, referred to as the “Suspension Defect,” involves issues with components such as the track bar bushing, steering damper, ball joints, control arms, shock absorbers, and struts, leading to severe shaking of the steering wheel, commonly known as the “Death Wobble” or “Shimmy.” Id. at *5. The plaintiffs claimed that this shaking, which occurs at highway speeds, can cause drivers to lose control of the vehicle, creating a serious safety risk to both the driver and others on the road. According to the plaintiffs, while Ford redesigned the suspension system starting in 2005 to prevent the Shimmy, the factory- installed steering damper was insufficient to resolve the issue. Internal documents suggested that Ford engineers were aware of the problem as early as 2002 and that the steering damper design would not be effective in preventing the Shimmy. Despite this knowledge, Ford allegedly continued to use an ineffective damper in the vehicles. The plaintiffs claimed that Ford’s actions, including continuing to use defective dampers, issuing misleading statements about the cause of the problem, and failing to provide an adequate remedy, demonstrated a pattern of negligence and unfair business practices. The plaintiffs moved for class certification pursuant to Rule 23 seeking to represent a nationwide class and several state-specific sub-classes for individuals who purchased or leased 2005-2019 Ford F-250 and F-350 4x4 trucks primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. The court granted in part the motion, certifying several state sub-classes but declining to certify a nationwide class. First, the court determined that the class was sufficiently numerous as Ford sold

Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online