Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
June 11, 2010, Argued and Submitted, Pasadena, California; August 17, 2010, Filed
No. 09-55104, No. 09-55105
[*1170] D.W. NELSON, Senior Circuit 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 [**2] 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 [**3] 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 [*1171] 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.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
617 F.3d 1168 *; 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 17132 **; 77 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 411; CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P18,466
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.
Subsequent History: Class certification denied by, in part, Class certification granted by, in part, Request granted, On remand at Gable v. Land Rover N. Am., Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90774 (C.D. Cal., July 25, 2011)
Prior History: [**1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. D.C. No. 8:07-cv-00627-AG-RNB. D.C. No. 8:07-cv-00376-AG-RNB. Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding.
Gable v. Land Rover N. Am., Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82996 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 29, 2008)
Disposition: REVERSED and REMANDED.
tires, warranty, predominate, alignment, class member, class certification, district court, class action, wear, consumer protection, prematurely, common issue, replacement, geometry, proposed class, manifestation, repair, commonality, proposed class member, unjust enrichment, alleged defect, classwide, litigate, certify, factors, argues, cases
Civil Procedure, Appeals, Standards of Review, Abuse of Discretion, Special Proceedings, Class Actions, Appellate Review, Certification of Classes, Prerequisites for Class Action, General Overview, Clearly Erroneous Review, Commonality, Predominance, Typicality, Superiority