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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf