Dennis Speerly v. General Motors, LLC
25a0170p.06 (6th Cir. 2025) (2025)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a multi-state class action alleging product defects to be certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the plaintiffs must demonstrate through a rigorous, element-by-element analysis for each state-law claim that common questions of law or fact predominate over individualized inquiries, such as those concerning defect manifestation, reliance, and presentment for repair.
Facts:
- Between 2015 and 2019, General Motors (GM) equipped certain vehicle models with its "Hydra-Matic 8-Speed Transmission" (8L).
- One alleged design issue involved the transmission fluid, which could absorb moisture and change viscosity, causing the transmission to vibrate and create a "shudder" sensation for the driver.
- A second, unrelated design issue involved the transmission's valve body, which could trap air or apply excessive hydraulic pressure, causing the vehicle to hesitate, lurch, or jerk violently when shifting gears.
- GM was aware of these issues internally before the vehicles were sold to the public, with an engineer noting that the "shudder is terrible" on test cars.
- In response to customer complaints about the shudder, GM developed a new transmission fluid but did not issue a recall, instead instructing dealers to perform a fluid flush for customers who complained.
- For the harsh shifting, GM issued numerous Technical Service Bulletins to dealers but instructed them to tell customers the behavior was "characteristic" of the vehicles.
- GM eventually implemented a full redesign of the transmission to solve the problems, which was released for the 2022 model year and later vehicles.
- Dennis Speerly and other customers purchased these vehicles and experienced the shuddering and/or harsh shifting problems.
Procedural Posture:
- Seventy-four plaintiffs from 32 states filed a consolidated class-action lawsuit against General Motors, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, a federal trial court.
- The plaintiffs alleged claims for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, violation of state consumer protection statutes, and fraudulent omission.
- The plaintiffs moved for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
- The district court granted the motion, certifying 26 statewide subclasses representing approximately 800,000 individuals.
- General Motors, as defendant-appellant, appealed the class-certification order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, an intermediate federal appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a district court abuse its discretion by certifying 26 statewide subclasses in a product liability action without first conducting a rigorous, claim-by-claim, and element-by-element analysis to ensure that common questions predominate over individualized issues like defect manifestation, reliance, and repair history under the various states' laws?
Opinions:
Majority - Sutton, C.J.
Yes. A district court abuses its discretion by certifying a multi-state class action without conducting a rigorous, claim-by-claim analysis to ensure common questions predominate over individualized ones. The district court failed to conduct the required element-by-element analysis for each of the 59 state-law claims, improperly relying on an abstract concept of 'defect' which has different legal meanings under warranty, consumer protection, and fraud laws. Individualized questions overwhelm common ones: express warranty claims require individual inquiries into each owner's repair history; implied warranty claims depend on the specific manifestation of the defect for each driver; and many consumer protection and fraud claims require individualized proof of defect manifestation or reliance on GM's omissions, which cannot be resolved on a class-wide basis.
Concurring - Thapar, J.
Yes. The class certification should be vacated. The problem of some class members having different injuries (or no injury) from the named plaintiffs—the 'disjuncture problem'—is better analyzed under the procedural requirements of Rule 23 (like typicality and adequacy), not under the constitutional doctrine of Article III standing. Once the named plaintiffs establish their own standing, the court has jurisdiction; the remaining question is whether the class is properly constructed under Rule 23's framework for managing litigation, which it is not here.
Concurring - Nalbandian, J.
Yes. The class certification must be vacated, and the court should have resolved the case on standing grounds. A class cannot be certified if it includes a significant number of members who have not suffered a concrete injury-in-fact required by Article III. An 'overpayment' or 'benefit-of-the-bargain' theory of injury is too speculative for class members whose vehicles never manifested a defect, as they received a functioning product and therefore suffered no actual harm.
Dissenting - Moore, J.
No. The district court did not abuse its discretion, as its rigorous analysis correctly found that common questions predominate. The majority erects insurmountable barriers to class certification and improperly decides the case on its merits. The core of the case is the universal two-defect theory, which is a common contention that drives the resolution of all claims. The state-law variations cited by the majority are overstated; for example, the UCC's 'failure of essential purpose' doctrine obviates the need for individualized presentment-for-repair inquiries, and many states are flexible on reliance in fraudulent concealment class actions. The district court's careful analysis should be affirmed under the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.
Analysis:
This decision significantly raises the bar for certifying multi-state consumer class actions in the Sixth Circuit. It mandates a detailed, element-by-element breakdown for every cause of action at the commonality stage and a granular state-by-state analysis of potentially individual issues like reliance and manifestation at the predominance stage. The ruling makes it much harder for plaintiffs to aggregate claims across different states, as even slight variations in state law can now be used to defeat class certification by arguing they create individualized questions that overwhelm common ones. This approach prioritizes avoiding trial manageability problems over the efficiency of aggregating small-value consumer claims.
