“Land Rover argues that the evidence will demonstrate that the prospective class members’ vehicles do not suffer from a common defect, but rather, from tire wear due to individual factors such as driving habits and weather. However, we have held that proof of the manifestation of a defect is not a prerequisite to class certification. What Land Rover argues is whether class members can win on the merits. For appellants’ claims regarding the existence of the defect and the defendant’s alleged violation of consumer protection laws, this inquiry does not overlap with the predominance test. Although early tire wear cases may be particularly problematic for plaintiffs seeking class certification, we reject Land Rover’s suggestion that automobile defect cases can categorically never be certified as a class. Gable and Wolin assert that the defect exists in the alignment geometry, not in the tires, that Land Rover failed to reveal material facts in violation of consumer protection laws, and that Land Rover was unjustly enriched when it sold a defective vehicle. All of these allegations are susceptible to proof by generalized evidence. Although individual factors may affect premature tire wear, they do not affect whether the vehicles were sold with an alignment defect.” Wolin v. Jaguar, 617 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2010).
Leave a Reply