## Facts

- Purchasers of Kenmore-brand front-loading washing machines sold by Sears alleged two product defects under state breach-of-warranty theories across six states.
- The “mold/odor” claims alleged a design defect that allowed mold accumulation and resulting odors in certain models sold over multiple years; design changes allegedly reduced, but did not eliminate, the problem.
- The “control-unit” claims alleged a defective central control unit that caused machines to stop mid-cycle and become inoperable.
- Plaintiffs alleged Sears knew of the control-unit defect, charged customers hundreds of dollars for repairs, and continued shipping machines containing earlier-manufactured defective control units after a 2005 correction.
- The district court effectively treated the litigation as two class actions, denying certification for the mold class and granting certification for the control-unit class.
- The court of appeals previously reversed the mold denial and affirmed the control-unit certification; the Supreme Court vacated and remanded for reconsideration in light of *Comcast Corp. v. Behrend*.

## Issues

1. Whether, after *Comcast*, Rule 23(b)(3) predominance is defeated because damages may vary among class members and require individualized proof.
2. Whether certification is proper when liability can be decided on a class-wide basis but damages may require individualized determinations or later proceedings.
3. Whether *Comcast* or asserted new evidence required remand to the district court for a new class-certification ruling.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit reinstated its prior judgment and reaffirmed certification of both the mold and control-unit classes.
- The court held that common issues predominated because the central liability questions—whether the machines were defective and whether warranties were breached—were capable of class-wide resolution.
- The court rejected the argument that *Comcast* imposed a general rule barring certification whenever damages are individualized.
- The court declined to remand for new certification proceedings, noting the district court’s continuing authority to modify or refine certification as the case develops.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 23(b)(3) predominance is satisfied when common questions central to liability predominate, even if individual issues (including damages) remain.
- *Comcast* requires that any classwide damages model match the plaintiffs’ liability theory in that case; it does not require that damages be provable on a uniform, classwide basis in every Rule 23(b)(3) class.
- Separating classwide adjudication of liability from later individualized damage determinations can be a permissible and efficient case-management approach.
- Class certification orders are provisional and may be altered as additional evidence develops or manageability concerns become concrete.

## Conclusion

The court reaffirmed certification of two warranty-based product-defect classes, holding that *Comcast* did not require decertification because common liability questions predominated even though individual damages might later require separate proof and administration.


Butler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 727 F.3d 796 (7th Cir. 2013)