Products Liability & Mass Torts Class Action Review – 2025

1984, became heavily contaminated due to the release of hazardous chemicals, including tetrachloroethylene (PCE), trichloroethylene (TCE), and trichloroethane (TCA). These contaminants were primarily dumped into a defective clay-pipe sewer system that leaked these substances into the surrounding soil and groundwater. Additional spills and leaks also occurred from tanks, storage areas, and plating rooms. The contamination spread beyond the facility, impacting nearby residential areas, including what was later termed the Glendale Area. Residents were exposed to these toxic substances through various routes such as outdoor air, groundwater, surface water, soil vapor, sewer vapor, and indoor air. Contaminants infiltrated homes, particularly affecting indoor air quality when homes flooded. In 1995, a groundwater recovery system was installed as part of initial remediation efforts, but system failures led to further contamination. Subsequent interim measures included improvements in the groundwater treatment system and the installation of an air sparge/soil vapor extraction system. In 2018, renewed concerns prompted further investigation and remediation efforts, including indoor air testing and repairs to plumbing and sewer lines. By 2020, several interim measures had been implemented, including the replacement of sewer lines and installation of sub-slab depressurization systems in affected homes. These actions aimed to mitigate exposure to volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and address any potential vapor intrusion. In 2022, the EPA proposed a final remedy to address remaining contamination, which included installing a permeable reactive barrier (PRB) for groundwater treatment and continuing monitoring and mitigation efforts. A consent order reached in 2024 between the parties formalized these measures, outlining the responsibilities of the involved parties to ensure long-term protection of human health and the environment. The plaintiffs were property owners who alleged that they were subjected to property damage and health risks due to the toxic waste. The plaintiffs sought leave to file an amended complaint excluding personal injury damages. They argued that this amendment would address issues related to claim- splitting and class representative adequacy. The court found that the motion was not timely, as the plaintiffs originally included personal injury claims in their complaint over four years ago, and despite being given ample time to amend, they did not do so until the last moment. The court ruled that further delay would not be warranted, especially given that the case was scheduled for trial in a few months. On the issue of class certification, the court determined that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the class was so numerous that joining all members would be impracticable. The class members lived in close geographic proximity, thereby making joinder feasible. Consequently, the court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to meet necessary criteria for class certification and denied their motion to amend the complaint and for reconsideration. The plaintiffs filed a class action in In Re FCA US LLC Monostable Electric Gearshift Litigation , 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192127 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 10, 2024), alleging that the defendant knowingly sold vehicles with a defective monostable gear shifter design, which resulted in economic losses for consumers who believed they were purchasing safe vehicles. Despite a recall and a software fix aimed at addressing these concerns, the plaintiffs claimed that the fix did not resolve all issues, which led to continued risks of unintended vehicle movement and that they therefore overpaid for their vehicles due to the undisclosed defects. After years of litigation and a jury trial that concluded in September 2022, the jury found no design defect under the laws of 18 states but recognized a defect under Utah law. The jury also determined that the defendant did not conceal its knowledge of the defect. Following the verdict, the court entered judgment for the defendant regarding the claims from most states while allowing claims from New York, California, and Utah to proceed. One of the named plaintiffs subsequently sought to pursue the sole remaining cause of action for breach of implied warranty under Utah law and filed a motion to certify a class for the claim and seeking a ruling on liability. The court denied the motion. The defendant first argued that the plaintiff’s claims were not typical to those of the other class members he sought to represent because he purchased a used vehicle, while most class members bought new ones. The defendant further argued that individual damage assessments would lead to the class being unmanageable and thus a class action was not the superior method of adjudication. The court agreed that questions of individual knowledge regarding the defect would predominate over overwhelm common issues, as individual defenses about pre-sale knowledge could dominate the trial. For these reasons, the court denied the motion for class certification. At the appellate level, the Sixth Circuit vacated the district court’s ruling granting class certification in In Re Nissan North America, Inc., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 29762 (6th Cir. Nov. 22, 2024). The plaintiffs, a group of Nissan car owners, filed a class action alleging that their cars had faulty braking systems, and brought claims for violation of their warranties, fraud, consumer protection laws, and for unjust enrichment. Nissan began equipping its cars with automatic braking systems designed to prevent collisions by using radar, control units, and brakes. These systems could apply the brakes automatically if they detected a potential collision, but they

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