Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover North Am. LLC
Decision Date | 17 August 2010 |
Docket Number | No. 09-55104,09-55105.,09-55104 |
Citation | 617 F.3d 1168 |
Parties | Brian J. WOLIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Defendant-Appellee.Kenneth Gable, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
James C. Shah (argued), Nathan Zipperian, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP, Media, PA; James E. Miller, Laurie Rubinow, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP, Chester, CT, for the plaintiffs-appellants.
Christopher T. Handman (argued), Martin A. Price, Paul A. Werner, Erica M. Knievel, Hogan & Hartson, LLP, Washington, D.C., for the defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. Nos. 8:07-cv-00627-AG-RNB, 8:07-cv-00376-AG-RNB.
Before DOROTHY W. NELSON and RONALD M. GOULD, Circuit Judges, and JAMES S. GWIN, District Judge.*
Kenneth Gable and Brian Wolin appeal the district court's denial of their respective motions for class certification. Gable and Wolin each brought a class action lawsuit against Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC (“Land Rover”) alleging that Land Rover's LR3 vehicles suffer from an alignment geometry defect that causes tires to wear prematurely. We must decide whether the district court erred as a matter of law when it declined to certify a class because Gable and Wolin were unable to prove that a majority of potential class members suffered from the consequences of the alleged alignment defect. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292, and we reverse.
Kenneth Gable and Brian Wolin each bought a 2005 Land Rover LR3. Gable purchased his vehicle in 2004 in Michigan. Wolin made his purchase in 2006 in Florida. Both vehicles came factory equipped with Goodyear Wrangler tires.
Gable and Wolin both allege that their vehicles are defective. The defect, characterized by the plaintiffs as a geometry defect in the vehicles' alignment, allegedly caused uneven and premature tire wear and gave their vehicles a rough ride. According to Gable and Wolin, LR3 drivers must replace their tires prematurely, in many cases after just 15,000 miles.
The LR3 came with a four-year, 50,000 mile factory warranty (the “Limited Warranty”). This warranty covered “repairs required to correct defects in factory-supplied materials or factory workmanship ... with the exception of tires.” Land Rover also provided a separate warranty (the “Tire Warranty”) covering tire replacement of tires and/or vehicle realignment in the event the tires exhibit “[e]xcessive wear that is inconsistent with normal use” and “caused by a manufacturing defect elsewhere on the vehicle.”
On October 3, 2006, Land Rover issued a Technical Service Bulletin indicating that the tires on certain vehicles may wear prematurely and unevenly due to the vehicles' steering alignment geometry. Land Rover then began to cover the costs of temporarily fixing the defect on a pro rata basis. Land Rover did not offer owners full reimbursement as provided in the warranty. Gable complained to his Land Rover dealer, and the Land Rover service manager covered part of Gable's bill for the replacement of his tires. Wolin complained multiple times and, ultimately, Land Rover's dealer covered part of Wolin's bill for the replacement of his tires.
Gable filed a class action complaint on behalf of all those who purchased or leased 2005 and 2006 Land Rover LR3s in Michigan. Wolin filed a class action complaint on behalf of all those who purchased or leased a 2004, 2005, or 2006 Land Rover LR3 in Florida. The lawsuits were filed pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). According to the appellants, Land Rover knew of the defect and continued to sell the vehicles without disclosing the existence of the defect. Appellants also allege that Land Rover breached its warranties by failing to cover the entire cost of repairing the defect and replacing the tires. Gable asserts claims under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA), Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.901 et seq. , as well as for breach of express and implied warranties, and for unjust enrichment. Wolin asserts claims under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), Fla. Stat. § 501.201 et seq. , and for breach of express warranties and unjust enrichment.
On September 29, 2008, the district court denied each of the appellants' respective motions for class certification. The court concluded that neither could meet his burden of showing that common issues predominate. The court indicated that the number of people in the class who have experienced the alignment defect is an important factor in the Rule 23 analysis, and concluded that neither Gable nor Wolin produced sufficient evidence of the rate of the defect. After first stating that the plaintiffs in Samuel-Bassett v. Kia Motors America, Inc. showed that up to 85% of the vehicles were defective, the court held that both Gable and Wolin failed to meet their respective burdens because neither could estimate the percent of prospective class members whose vehicles manifested the defect, let alone show credibly that even a majority of class members' vehicles experienced premature tire wear. 212 F.R.D. 271, 282 (E.D.Pa.2002) vacated on other grounds, 357 F.3d 392 (3d Cir.2004). Gable and Wolin timely filed their appeals.
We review a district court's denial of class certification for abuse of discretion. Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180, 1186 (9th Cir.2001); see also In re Salomon Analyst Metromedia Litig., 544 F.3d 474, 480 (2d Cir.2008) (). “Our review is limited to whether the district court correctly selected and applied Rule 23 criteria.” Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 603 F.3d 571, 580 (9th Cir.2010) (en banc). “An abuse of discretion occurs when the district court, in making a discretionary ruling, relies upon an improper factor, omits consideration of a factor entitled to substantial weight, or mulls the correct mix of factors but makes a clear error of judgment in assaying them.” Parra v. Bashas', Inc., 536 F.3d 975, 977-78 (9th Cir.2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). “To the extent that a ruling on a Rule 23 requirement is supported by a finding of fact,” we review that finding for clear error. In re Salomon Analyst, 544 F.3d at 480.
According to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), a plaintiff hoping to certify a class must demonstrate that “(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” The parties do not seriously dispute that the proposed class satisfies the numerosity and adequacy requirements. The plaintiff must also meet one of the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b). Only one such requirement is at issue in this litigation: “that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3). We will first address commonality, predominance and typicality under Rule 23(a), followed by superiority under Rule 23(b).
Gable and Wolin assert that the district court abused its discretion when it concluded that the proposed class could not show that common issues predominate. We agree.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(2) provides that “questions of law or fact common to the class” are a prerequisite to class certification. Commonality exists where class members' “situations share a common issue of law or fact, and are sufficiently parallel to insure a vigorous and full presentation of all claims for relief.” Cal. Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. v. Legal Servs. Corp., 917 F.2d 1171, 1175 (9th Cir.1990) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “The existence of shared legal issues with divergent factual predicates is sufficient, as is a common core of salient facts coupled with disparate legal remedies within the class.” Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th Cir.1998).
Appellants easily satisfy the commonality requirement. The claims of all prospective class members involve the same alleged defect, covered by the same warranty, and found in vehicles of the same make and model. Appellants' complaints set forth more than one issue that is common to the class, including: 1) whether the LR3's alignment geometry was defective; 2) whether Land Rover was aware of this defect; 3) whether Land Rover concealed the nature of the defect; 4) whether Land Rover's conduct violated the Michigan Consumer Protection Act or the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act; and 5) whether Land Rover was obligated to pay for or repair the alleged defect pursuant to the express or implied terms of its warranties. These common core questions are sufficient to satisfy the commonality test. See Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1019-20.
We next consider whether these common questions predominate. While Rule 23(a)(2) asks whether there are issues common to the class, Rule 23(b)(3) asks whether these common questions predominate. Though there is substantial overlap between the two tests, the 23(b)(3) test is “far more demanding,” see Amchem...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kihn v. Bill Graham Archives, LLC
...is to assure that the interest of the named representative aligns with the interests of the class." Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC , 617 F.3d 1168, 1175 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497, 508 (9th Cir. 1992) ). "The test of typicality is whether othe......
-
Munoz v. PHH Mortg. Corp., No. 1:08-cv-00759-DAD-BAM
...’s advisory comm. notes). Thus, the test of Rule 23(b)(3) is "far more demanding" than that of Rule 23(a). Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC , 617 F.3d 1168, 1172 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Amchem , 521 U.S. at 623–24, 117 S.Ct. 2231 ). Ultimately, "[t]he predominance inquiry ‘asks wheth......
-
Darisse v. Nest Labs, Inc.
...to the named plaintiffs, and whether other class members have been injured by the same course of conduct." Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC, 617 F.3d 1168, 1175 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation and internal quotationmarks omitted). The standard is permissive and asks only whether the claims ......
-
Skaar v. Wilkie
... ... conduct.'" Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover N.A., ... LLC , 617 F.3d 1168, ... ...
-
Baker v. Microsoft Corporation: Game Companies Beware, Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals Decision May Make It More Difficult To Defeat Class Actions
...Id. 4 Id., at *16. 5 No. CV07-0376, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82996 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2008), rev'd Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC, 617 F.3d 1168, 1176 (9th Cir. 6 No. C07-1121, 2009 WL 10219350 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 5, 2009). 7 617 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2010). 8 Baker, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS ......
-
Baker v. Microsoft Corporation: Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals Decision In Class Action Against Video Gaming Company May Make It More Difficult To Defeat Class Actions
...manifestations of a defect preclude resolution of claims on a class-wide basis. Id., citing Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC, 617 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2010). "[P]roof that [a alleged design defect] caused individual damages is not necessary . . . Rather, plaintiffs' breach of express w......
-
California Court Of Appeal Clarifies Breach Of Warranty Law In Class Actions And Vacates Order Certifying Class Of Consumers In 'American Honda Motor Company, Inc. V. Superior Court'
...proposed class because it relied almost exclusively on a Ninth Circuit opinion, Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, 617 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2010), without properly applying California law. Id. at 1375. Although Wolin correctly stands for the proposition that proof of manifestatio......
-
The Hard Stop On 'Adventurous Innovation' In Class Action Litigation: The United States Supreme Court's Decision In Comcast v. Behrend, Remand Of Whirlpool v. Glazer And The Probable Return Of Defect Manifestation To Class Certification Determination
...2013 U.S. LEXIS 2695 (Apr. 1, 2013). Glazer v. Whirlpool, 678 F.3d 409, 414 (6th Cir. 2012). Id. at 420. Id. Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover, 617 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. Id. at 1170. Id. at 1173. Id. at 1173-74. Comcast, ___ U.S. at ___, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 2544 at *13. Id. at *20. _ Previously publishe......
-
Class Actions in the Year 2026: a Prognosis
...Cir. 2012); Shahriar v. Smith & Wollensky Rest. Grp., Inc., 659 F.3d 234, 252 (2d Cir. 2011); Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC, 617 F.3d 1168, 1175 (9th Cir. 2010).277. See, e.g., Adkins v. Morgan Stanley, 307 F.R.D. 119, 141-47 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (predominance, superiority), appeal dock......
-
Enforcing an Unenforceable Law: the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard
...Mills, Inc., 275 F.R.D. 282, 289 (C.D. Cal. 2011)).203. Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC, 617 F.3d 1168, 1175 (9th Cir. 2010)). 204. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d), 1453, 1711-15 (2012).205. Id. §§ 1332(d)(2), 1712.206. Michael W. Davis et al., Coupon Settl......