Products Liability & Mass Torts Class Action Review – 2025

over 767,000 vehicles to class members during the relevant period in the states where certification was sought. The court also concluded that the classes met the commonality requirement because all class members’ claims were based on the same Suspension Defect, which affected every vehicle. The court also found that the plaintiffs met the typicality requirement because they had the same interests and injuries as the class members. All the plaintiffs alleged the same defect in their vehicles and claimed similar economic damages due to the defect. The court also ruled that the plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ counsel were adequate class representatives. As to the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b), the court examined whether common issues predominated over individual issues. The plaintiffs argued that their claims involved common legal and factual issues that applied to all class members, particularly the question of whether the vehicles involved had the same “Suspension Defect.” Id. at *88. Ford argued that there were significant individual issues that prevented class certification, particularly the need to assess the use of the vehicle by each class member. Ford further contended that the “Suspension Defect” may not be common across all the vehicles in the class, arguing that the defect was due to manufacturing variability, and that the suspension systems in different model years and platforms were not uniform. Id. at *89-90. The plaintiffs argued that the vehicles, while varying in design over the years, shared the same common defect, i.e., an inadequate damper system that caused the “Shimmy” effect. Id. at *92. They asserted that these vehicles have similar components and that the defect could be proven with common evidence across all class members. The court ultimately agreed with the plaintiffs, finding that they demonstrated that common issues, such as the existence of the suspension defect, predominated over any individual issues. The plaintiffs’ motion sought certification for sub-classes asserting six states’ consumer protections statutes, all of which are fraud-based claims, including the CLRA, the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (CCPA), the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practice Act (ICFA), the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act (IDCSA), the New Mexico Unfair Trade Practices Act (NMUTPA), and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA). Id. at *96-97. The plaintiffs further sought certification for sub-classes asserting claims for fraudulent concealment under five states’ common law, including California, Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, and New Mexico. In sum, the court found that the plaintiffs met their burden of proving that common issues predominated over individual ones, and that the class action mechanism was the superior method for adjudicating the claims in this case. However, the court ruled that Ford’s knowledge was not uniform across all vehicle models and time periods. As a result, the court limited the class certification to certain models (P131 and P538) where common knowledge of the defect could be established but denied certification for other models (P356 and P473) due to variations in Ford’s knowledge. The court found that common evidence of Ford’s omissions satisfied the requirements for class certification in California under the CLRA and common law fraud claims. As to the other state-specific claims, the court denied class certification for the Arizona sub-class because plaintiffs there must prove actual reliance for common law fraud, and the court found they failed to show sufficient evidence of a uniform presumption of reliance. For Illinois, the court granted class certification of the ICFA claim, but denied certification for common law fraud, as reliance must be shown individually. The court denied certification of the Indiana sub-class because reliance is a necessary element for an Indiana deceptive consumer sales act claim, and since it could not be presumed and would require individual determinations, the court found certification was not appropriate. The court also denied class certification for the fraudulent concealment claim under Maine law because it requires individual proof of reliance in fraud claims. The court granted certification of the NMUTPA but denied it as to the common law claims. The court granted certification of the TDTPA, and the implied warranty claims of Maine and South Carolina. As for the express warranty claims in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, the court agreed with the plaintiffs that these issues could be addressed using Ford’s records and granted class certification. Finally, the court denied the plaintiffs’ request to certify a nationwide class under the MMWA due to the variations in state laws. Accordingly, the court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. 2. Rulings Denying Class Certification Motions Or Granting Decertification Motions Various courts also denied class certification in mass tort and products liability class actions in 2024, or decertified classes based on further discovery. For example, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in Denney, et al. v. Amphenol Corp ., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117372 (S.D. Ind. July 3, 2024). The plaintiffs filed a class action alleging that the defendants failed to control and clean up hazardous contamination at two sites in Indiana. The court previously had denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, or to file an amended complaint. The court denied the motion. The sites, originally operated by Bendix from 1961 to

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