Questions Presented
1. Whether a class may be certified under Rule 23(b)(3) even though most class members have not been harmed and could not sue on their own behalf.
2. Whether a class may be certified without resolving factual disputes that bear directly on the requirements of Rule 23.
3. Whether a class may be certified without determining whether factual dissimilarities among putative class members give rise to individualized issues that predominate over any common issues.
Case Updates
Supreme Court grants petition for cert., vacates and remands a Sixth Circuit decision that allowed an Ohio consumer lawsuit to proceed as a class action
April 01, 2013
The Supreme Court granted the petition for writ of certiorari. The Court vacated the judgment and remanded to the Seventh Circuit for further consideration in light of Comcast v. Behrend.
U.S. Chamber urges Supreme Court to review Ohio consumer lawsuit allowed to proceed as a class action
September 28, 2012
NCLC urged the U.S. Supreme Court to review a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit that upheld the certification of a class action even though it was certified without the “rigorous analysis” required by Rule 23 and Wal-Mart v. Dukes. In this case, the Sixth Circuit affirmed certification of a class of some 200,000 Ohio consumers who allege defects in a variety of washing machines they purchased, even though most of those consumers ostensibly suffered no injury whatsoever and their relevant experiences (e.g., what model washing machine they purchased, how they operated it, and whether they experienced any problem) vary wildly.
In its amicus brief, NCLC argued that the Sixth Circuit's decision undermines Wal-Mart v. Dukes by authorizing certification of a class lacking any common underlying injury or common question and includes individuals who have not been harmed. If allowed to stand, the decision could adversely affect many businesses through increased exposure to “no injury” consumer class actions. If allowed to stand, the decision could adversely affect many businesses through increased exposure to “no injury” consumer class actions, which exposes them to litigation and liability based on mere dissatisfaction in a small fraction of the product’s buyers.
Case Documents
- Cert. Petition -- Whirlpool Corp. v. Glazer (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
- Respondent's Brief -- Whirlpool Corp. v. Glazer (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
- Petitioner's Reply Brief -- Whirlpool Corp. v. Glazer (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
- NCLC amicus brief -- Whirlpool Corp. v. Glazer et al. (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
- Product Liability Advisory Council -- Whirlpool Corp. v. Glazer (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
- Pacific Legal Foundation amicus brief -- Whirlpool Corp. v. Glazer (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf