## Facts

- Sears, Roebuck and Company sold Kenmore-brand front-loading washing machines to consumers.
- Two groups of purchasers filed separate product-liability suits against Sears based on different alleged defects.
- The first group alleged a design defect that caused mold and mildew buildup in the machines.
- The second group alleged a defect that caused the machines to stop mid-cycle without explanation (attributed to the electronic control unit).
- The washer manufacturer, Whirlpool, made design changes to some models that were alleged to have mold problems.
- Sears argued that model differences and design changes meant that different washers were defective in different ways (or not defective), making class treatment improper.
- Each group moved to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(3).
- The district court denied class certification for the mold claims but granted class certification for the stoppage claims.
- The mold plaintiffs appealed the denial, and Sears cross-appealed the grant of certification; the Seventh Circuit accepted review under Rule 23(f).

## Issues

1. Whether Rule 23(b)(3) predominance was met for the mold claims despite design changes, model variation, and differences in the degree (or absence) of mold among class members.
2. Whether Rule 23(b)(3) predominance was met for the stoppage/control-unit claims despite individual questions about which machines failed, why they failed, and the amount of each purchaser’s damages.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit reversed the denial of class certification for the mold claims and directed that the district court certify the mold class (with subclasses if needed).
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the grant of class certification for the stoppage/control-unit claims.
- Disposition: affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

## Legal Principles

- Under Rule 23(b)(3), predominance asks whether common questions are more significant than individual questions in light of how the case will be tried, not whether individual issues remain after common ones are answered.
- A products case can satisfy predominance when a key liability question—such as whether a product line is defective—can be resolved with common proof for the class.
- Differences among product models or design revisions do not automatically defeat class certification; they may be handled through subclasses or other trial-management methods if the core liability question remains common.
- The possibility that some class members did not experience a malfunction (or have not yet experienced it) does not by itself bar certification when plaintiffs seek relief tied to an alleged defect and resulting diminution in value or warranty breach.
- Individualized damages calculations ordinarily do not defeat predominance when liability is susceptible to common proof; courts can determine damages in later proceedings or by other workable methods after resolving shared liability issues.

## Conclusion

Butler held that class certification was proper for two related groups of Kenmore washer purchasers because a common, classwide liability question—whether the machines were defective—could be answered with common evidence even though model variations, differing consumer experiences, and individualized damages issues would remain; the Seventh Circuit therefore reversed the denial of certification for the mold claims and affirmed certification for the stoppage/control-unit claims.


Butler v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 702 F.3d 359 (2012)