Skip to main content

US Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Class-Action Lawsuits

Court Stays Out of Dispute Over Allegedly Defective Washing Machines

The Supreme Court on Monday turned away challenges to large lawsuits over allegedly defective washing machines, rejecting appeals that sought to place new limits on class-action claims.

The court's decision to stay out of the dispute marks a breather for justices who in recent years have issued a string of rulings disallowing class-action cases. Business groups had filed briefs supporting the defendants in the washing-machine cases, hoping the court would yet again cut back on lawsuits in which litigants make claims on behalf of a large group of plaintiffs.

At issue were class actions alleging certain models of front-loading washing machines contained defects that caused them to accumulate mold.

The defendants, including Whirlpool Corp.  and a subsidiary of Sears Holding Corp. , argued the cases involved too many individualized issues to proceed as class actions. Washer owners varied in how they used their machines and whether they experienced moldy odors from the products, the defendants said.

The class actions, if allowed, could produce "windfalls for multitudes of uninjured persons and class-action lawyers," Whirlpool said in a court brief.

The plaintiffs said their lawsuits were precisely the type that deserved to proceed as class-actions. The washer models in dispute, sold since 2001, were delivered with a uniform design defect that caused mold accumulation, and buyers had to absorb time and expense to try to fix the issue, the plaintiffs said in a court brief.

The washers "were designed and delivered to purchasers in a form unsuitable for their ordinary and intended use," they said.

Companies dislike class-actions because they threaten to impose large-scale financial liability. Businesses say that once courts allow class-actions to proceed defendants face enormous pressures to settle, even in cases that lack merit.

Consumer advocates say class-actions are an important tool for people to vindicate their legal rights, particularly in relatively small-money cases where it might not be feasible for consumers to pursue legal relief individually.

U.S. appeals courts decided to allow the washer cases against Whirlpool and Sears to proceed as class-actions, ruling the lawsuits were unaffected by a Supreme Court ruling last year that tossed out a class-action lawsuit against Comcast Corp.

In a related matter, a federal court in California allowed a similar class-action lawsuit over Bosch brand washing machines.

The Supreme Court on Monday left those rulings in place, rejecting the defendants' appeals without comment.

Article referred: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304834704579402902603942782?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304834704579402902603942782.html

Comments

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.