## Facts

- Purchasers and owners of certain Ford vehicles alleged the vehicles contained defective plastic intake manifolds, including plastic water crossover components that allegedly cracked and caused coolant leaks more often than aluminum manifolds.
- Plaintiffs alleged Ford knew by the mid-1990s that the plastic manifolds were prone to cracking, investigated and redesigned the part multiple times, and later implemented notification programs to alert owners.
- Plaintiffs brought consumer claims under the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), alleging misrepresentations about the vehicles’ characteristics and quality.
- The case was removed to federal court in the Northern District of California, where the district court granted class certification.
- Ford petitioned the Ninth Circuit for permission to take an interlocutory appeal from the class-certification order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f).

## Issues

1. What criteria govern the Ninth Circuit’s discretionary decision to permit an interlocutory appeal of a class-certification order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f)?
2. Under those criteria, whether Ford should be granted permission to appeal the district court’s class-certification order.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit held that Rule 23(f) review should be rare and articulated criteria for granting such petitions.
- The court adopted two categories identified in the Rule 23(f) Advisory Committee Note: (a) “death knell” situations for either party, and (b) unsettled and fundamental legal issues related to class actions.
- The court added a third category: manifest error in the district court’s class-certification decision.
- Applying these criteria, the court denied Ford’s petition for permission to appeal because none of the categories was satisfied.

## Legal Principles

- Interlocutory review under Rule 23(f) is discretionary and is not intended to provide routine appellate reconsideration of class-certification rulings.
- A “death knell” may justify Rule 23(f) review when the certification ruling effectively terminates a party’s ability to litigate (e.g., infeasibility of proceeding without a class, or extreme settlement pressure from certification), beyond merely high stakes.
- Rule 23(f) review may be warranted when the petition presents an unsettled and fundamental issue of class-action law for which immediate appellate guidance would materially aid administration of class litigation.
- “Manifest error” supports Rule 23(f) review only for clear, significant mistakes in applying Rule 23, not close or fact-bound disagreements.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit denied Ford’s Rule 23(f) petition and, in doing so, established that interlocutory review of class-certification orders in the circuit is exceptional, generally limited to death-knell circumstances, unsettled and fundamental class-action questions, or manifestly erroneous certification decisions.


Chamberlan v. Ford Motor Co., 402 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2005)