110.4493 Leonardv Sears Roebuck
User Manual: 110.4493
Open the PDF directly: View PDF 
.
Page Count: 26
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
JOSEPH LEONARD, KEVIN BARNES,
VICTOR MATOS, ALFRED BLAIR,
MARTIN CHAMPION, KAREN FREEMAN,
and PEGGY LEMLEY, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO.,
Defendant,
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION,
Intervenor Defendant.
ALAN JARASHOW, LAUREN CRANE, and
LAWRENCE L’HOMMEDIEU, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO.,
Defendant.
JOHN BETTUA, GIUSEPPINA P. DONIA,
DERRAL HOWARD, DENISE MILLER,
CHARLES NAPOLI, VIC PFEFER,
JEFFREY A. AND SANDRA K. ROBINSON,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO.,
Defendant.
Case No. 06-CV-7023
Consolidated with Case Nos.
07-CV-0412 and 08-CV-1832
The Hon. Mary M. Rowland
Leonard v. Sears, No. 06 C 7023 Page 1 of 24
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
In 2011, this Court entered an Order denying plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class
of “purchasers of front loading, high efficiency washing machines manufactured by
Whirlpool and sold by Sears” in six different States “whose machines suffered from
[a] mold defect.” (Dkt. 285 at 1) (Coleman, J.). The Court also denied a motion for
reconsideration. (Dkt. 327 at 1). A lengthy journey through federal appellate courts
followed, culminating in reversal. See Butler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., slip op., case
no. 06-CV-7023 (N.D. Ill. July 20, 2012), reversed in relevant part, 702 F.3d 359 (7th
Cir. 2012), rehearing and rehearing en banc denied (7th Cir. 2012), cert. granted,
judgment vacated, 133 S. Ct. 1722 (2013), and judgment reinstated, reversed in rele-
vant part, 727 F.3d 796 (7th Cir. 2013), cert denied, 134 S. Ct. 1277 (2014).
After the case returned to the district court, plaintiffs filed an amended renewed
motion for class certification. (Dkt. 381). Judge Coleman denied this motion without
prejudice, (Dkt. 452), knowing the parties intended subsequently to: (1) consent to
the jurisdiction of the undersigned, (Dkt. 456 (joint consent to jurisdiction of Magis-
trate Judge)); and then (2) re-submit portions of their earlier-filed class certification
briefs, with necessary amendments, (Dkt. 471 (resubmitting certain briefs)).
Plaintiffs’ pending renewed motion for class certification is identical to their ear-
lier motion (Dkt. 381), except that plaintiffs: (a) have substituted two new proposed
class representatives, and (b) seek to certify a class made up of Illinois plaintiffs on-
Leonard v. Sears, No. 06 C 7023 Page 2 of 24
ly, rather than plaintiffs from six different states. Similarly, the arguments raised
by Sears in opposition to plaintiffs’ pending renewed motion are identical to those
offered in its earlier opposition.
In sum, nearly ten years into this litigation and four years after the Court origi-
nally denied the request, a decision reversed by the Seventh Circuit Court of Ap-
peals, plaintiffs’ motion for class certification of a “mold defect class” awaits a new
ruling. For the reasons stated below, the motion for class certification [381] is
GRANTED. The Court hereby certifies the following liability-only class of Illinois
plaintiffs:
All persons who are current residents of Illinois and who purchased
certain models (listed below) of Whirlpool-Manufactured, Kenmore-
Brand Front-Load Washing Machines (“Kenmore Front-Load Wash-
ers”) for primarily personal, family, or household purposes, and not for
resale, in Illinois.
“Kenmore Front-Load Washers” is defined to include only washers
with the following model numbers:
Model No.
Begins With
Model by Color
Breakdown (if any)
Production Dates
110.4292*
42922 (White)
42924 (Bisque)
42926 (Graphite)
January 2001–June 2004
110.4293*
42932 (White)
42934 (Bisque)
42936 (Graphite)
February 2001–December 2003
110.4282*
42822 (White)
42824 (Bisque)
42826 (Graphite)
April 2001–July 2004
110.4283*
42832 (White)
42836 (Graphite)
June 2001–May 2003
110.4483*
44832 (White)
44836 (Graphite)
44834 (Bisque)
March 2002–June 2004
110.4493*
44932 (White)
44934 (Bisque)
44936 (Graphite)
October 2002–September 2004
110.45091
(n/a)
May 2003–September 2006
Leonard v. Sears, No. 06 C 7023 Page 3 of 24
Model No.
Begins With
Model by Color
Breakdown (if any)
Production Dates
110.4508*
45081 (White)
45087 (Pacific Blue)
45088 (Champagne)
45089 (Sedona)
May 2003–October 2006
110.44826
(n/a)
July 2003–June 2004
110.44921
(n/a)
August 2003–July 2004
110.45862
(n/a)
January 2004–September 2006
110.4598*
45981 (White-on-White)
45986 (Graphite)
January 2004–July 2006
110.43902
(n/a)
January 2004–May 2004
110.4599*
45991 (White-on-White)
45992 (White)
45994 (Bisque)
45996 (Graphite)
January 2004–July 2006
110.4596*
45962 (White)
45966 (Graphite)
June 2004–October 2006
110.4597*
45972 (White)
45976 (Graphite)
June 2004–October 2006
110.45872
(n/a)
July 2004–May 2006
110.46472
(n/a)
June 2005–June 2006
110.46462
(n/a)
August 2005–June 2006
110.4756*
47561 (White-on-White)
47566 (Black)
47567 (Pacific Blue)
August 2005–October 2010
110.4751*
47511 (White)
47512 (White-on-White)
January 2006–November 2009
110.49972
(n/a)
January 2006–October 2008
110.49962
(n/a)
April 2006–November 2009
110.4708*
47081 (White)
47086 (Black)
47087 (Pacific Blue)
47088 (Champagne)
47089 (Barolo)
April 2006–October 2009
110.4753*
47531 (White)
47532 (White-on-White)
April 2006–April 2009
110.4757*
47571 (White-on-White)
47577 (Pacific Blue)
August 2006–August 2009
110.47091
(n/a)
October 2006–March 2009
110.47852
(n/a)
March 2007–June 2007
110.47542
(n/a)
June 2007–November 2008
(See also chart appended to the end of this Order.)
Excluded from the class are: (1) Kenmore Front-Load Washers with
model numbers and manufacture dates not listed above; (2) Sears, any
entity in which Sears has a controlling interest, and its legal repre-
sentatives, officers, directors, employees, assigns, and successors; (3)
Whirlpool, any entity in which Whirlpool has a controlling interest,
Leonard v. Sears, No. 06 C 7023 Page 4 of 24
and its legal representatives, officers, directors, employees, assigns,
and successors; (4) Kenmore Front-Load Washers purchased through
the Sears or Whirlpool Employee Purchase Programs; (5) the Judge to
whom this case is assigned, any member of the Judge’s staff (including
the Special Master and his staff) and any member of the Judge’s or the
Special Master’s immediate family; (6) persons or entities who distrib-
ute or resell Kenmore Front-Load Washers; (7) government entities;
and (8) claims for personal injury, wrongful death, and/or emotional
distress.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Procedural History
In the currently-operative Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (Dkt.
162, amended by interlineation, Dkt. 467), Illinois plaintiffs Karen Freeman and
Peggy Lemley each allege that they bought a Kenmore-brand front-loading, high-
efficiency washing machine manufactured by intervenor-defendant Whirlpool and
sold by defendant Sears, and that the machine developed serious internal mold
problems. Specifically, plaintiffs allege their washers
contain a serious design defect that prevents adequate water drainage
and causes them to (a) accumulate mold and mildew within the Wash-
ing Machines; (b) produce a moldy odor that permeates [their] homes if
the doors to the Washing Machines are left open; (c) produce a mold or
mildew odor on clothes washed in the Machines; (d) fail to clean the
Machines and remove moisture, residue, growth and/or bacteria that
lead to the formation of mold, mildew and/or associated foul odors; and
(e) be unusable in the manner, to the extent to, and for the purpose for
which the Washing Machines were advertised, marketed, and sold.
(Dkt. 162, Complaint at ¶2). Freeman and Lemley assert the following claims: (1)
breach of express written warranty, in violation of the Magnuson-Moss Act, 15
U.S.C. §§ 2301-2312; (2) breach of implied warranty, in violation of the Magnuson-
Moss Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301-2312; (3) breach of express written warranty in viola-
Leonard v. Sears, No. 06 C 7023 Page 5 of 24
tion of Illinois law, 810 ILCS 5/2-313; and (4) breach of implied warranty in viola-
tion of Illinois law, 810 ILCS 5/2-314. (Id. ¶ 4).1 In their motion, however, plaintiffs
seek to certify for class treatment only the last of these four claims. (Dkt. 381 at 2,
¶1) (“Plaintiffs seek certification [only] of claims for breach of implied warranty un-
der the law[] of . . . Illinois”).2
Originally, plaintiffs sought certification of a six-state class of owners of
Kenmore machines that suffer the mold problem. Plaintiffs proposed their class
should be defined to include “[a]ll persons or entities who purchased, not for resale,
a [Kenmore] front-load washing machine in the States of California, Indiana, Illi-
nois, Kentucky, Minnesota and Texas.” Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification at 2
(Dkt. 206).3 The Court denied the motion for class certification. (Dkt. 285).4
1 The Complaint also originally contained claims for: (a) violation of the Illinois Con-
sumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq.; and (b) unjust
enrichment, in violation of Illinois law. The Court dismissed those claims with prejudice on
November 4, 2009. (Dkt. 170).
2 The named plaintiffs have represented to the Court that they will not pursue the first
three claims at trial.
3 See also Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration at 2 (Dkt. 289) (amending the proposed
class definition to include only washers “manufactured through 2008, without a steam fea-
ture”); Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for Certification at 1 (Dkt. 378) (amending the proposed
class definition again to include only washers “manufactured by Whirlpool in Germany
through 2008, without a steam feature”); Plaintiffs Amended Renewed Motion for Certifica-
tion at 1-2 (Dkt. 381) (amending the proposed class definition again to include only washers
“manufactured by Whirlpool through 2008, without a steam feature, other than those built
on the ‘Sierra’ platform”).
4 Plaintiffs have alleged two different product defects—the “mold problem,” and faulty
electronic central control units (“CCUs”). (Complaint at ¶ 50 (Dkt. 162)). In the same order
denying plaintiffs’ motion for certification of a “mold class,” the Court granted plaintiffs’
motion for certification of a CCU class. The Seventh Circuit affirmed class certification of
the CCU class. Litigation of the mold class and the CCU class is proceeding separately; the
CCU class is not addressed in this opinion.
Leonard v. Sears, No. 06 C 7023 Page 6 of 24
Plaintiffs appealed the denial of class certification and the Seventh Circuit Court
of Appeals reversed, holding the class should have been certified. Butler v. Sears,
Roebuck and Co., 702 F.3d 359 (7th Cir. 2012) (“Butler I”). The Seventh Circuit ob-
served that: (1) “[r]oughly 200,000 of these Kenmore-brand machines are sold each
year and there have been many thousands of complaints of bad odors by the own-
ers,” id. at 361; and (2) the “basic question in the litigation—were the machines de-
fective in permitting mold to accumulate and generate noxious odors?—is common
to the entire mold class,” id. The Seventh Circuit also noted its agreement with the
Sixth Circuit’s decision to uphold “the certification of a . . . mold class in a case,
identical to this one . . . , against Whirlpool,” the manufacturer of the machines. Id.
at 363 (citing In re Whirlpool Corp. Front–Loading Washer Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL
No. 2001, 678 F.3d 409 (6th Cir.2012)).
Sears filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari. The Supreme Court entered an order
vacating the Seventh Circuit’s prior judgment and remanding the case for further
consideration in light of Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013). Sears,
Roebuck and Co. v. Butler, 133 S. Ct. 2768 (2013). On remand, the Seventh Circuit
again concluded the district court should have certified the class. Butler v. Sears,
Roebuck & Co., 727 F.3d 796 (7th Cir. 2013) (“Butler II”). In Butler II, the Seventh
Circuit agreed once more with the Sixth Circuit, which had reinstated its own con-
clusion after also having its original opinion vacated by the Supreme Court. See id.
at 798 (citing In re Whirlpool Corp. Front-Loading Washer Prods. Liab. Litig., 722
F.3d 838, 845, 859-61 (6th Cir. 2013) (“Whirlpool II”)). Sears again petitioned the
Leonard v. Sears, No. 06 C 7023 Page 7 of 24
Supreme Court for a Writ of Certiorari; this time, it was denied. Sears, Roebuck and
Co. v. Butler, 134 S. Ct. 1277 (2014).5
Accordingly, this Court must now follow the Seventh Circuit’s mandate, includ-
ing its conclusions that: (1) “[t]here is a single, central, common issue of liability:
whether the Sears washing machine was defective”; and (2) any “complications”
caused by design differences in various washing machine models “can be handled by
the creation of subclasses,” if necessary. Butler II, 727 F.3d at 801-02.
B. Related History—Whirlpool
As noted, this case is closely related to the multidistrict litigation known as In re
Whirlpool Corp. Front-Loading Washer Products Liability Litigation. Indeed, this
case and Whirlpool share many of the same attorneys and experts; Whirlpool in-
volves the same washing machine designs as does this case; and the arguments of-
fered by the parties are virtually identical.
Specifically, not only does Sears sell Whirlpool-manufactured front-loading
washers under the Kenmore brand name, but Whirlpool also sells the same ma-
chines under its own brand name, “Duet.” From a mechanical design standpoint,
the Kenmore and Duet machines are duplicates. Like the Kenmore-branded ma-
chines, the Duet-branded machines also developed mold problems. Like plaintiffs
5 The full appellate history of this Court’s class certification ruling is as follows: Butler
v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., slip op., case no. 06-CV-7023 (N.D. Ill. July 20, 2012) (docket nos.
285 & 327), reversed in relevant part, 702 F.3d 359 (7th Cir. 2012), rehearing and rehearing
en banc denied (7th Cir. 2012), cert. granted, judgment vacated, 133 S. Ct. 1722 (2013), and
judgment reinstated, reversed in relevant part, 727 F.3d 796 (7th Cir. 2013), cert denied, 134
S. Ct. 1277 (2014).
Leonard v. Sears, No. 06 C 7023 Page 8 of 24
here, the Whirlpool plaintiffs moved to certify a number of single-state classes of
Duet-owners.
The Whirlpool MDL court granted certification of a class of Duet-owner plaintiffs
who lived in Ohio. In re Whirlpool Corp. Front-Loading Washer Prods. Liab. Litig.,
2010 WL 2756947 at *4 (N.D. Ohio July 12, 2010) (“Whirlpool Class Cert. Order I”).
The MDL court certified class-action treatment of only the question of liability,
however, “leaving . . . the damages issue[s] for individual determination.” Id. at *3.
Thereafter, the procedural history of Whirlpool essentially mirrors the procedur-
al history in this case. Whirlpool appealed the Class Cert. Order and the Sixth Cir-
cuit Court of Appeals affirmed. In re Whirlpool Corp. Front-Loading Washer Prods.
Liab. Litig., 678 F.3d 409 (6th Cir. 2012) (“Whirlpool I”). Whirlpool then filed a Peti-
tion for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court, which cited Comcast and “granted
Whirlpool’s petition, vacated [the Sixth Circuit’s] prior judgment, and remanded the
case to [the Court of Appeals] for further consideration.” In re Whirlpool Corp.
Front-Loading Washer Prods. Liab. Litig., 722 F.3d 838, 845 (6th Cir. 2013)
(“Whirlpool II”) (referring to the Supreme Court’s Order, Whirlpool Corp. v. Glazer,
133 S. Ct. 1722 (2013), as a “grant, vacate, and remand order (GVR)”). On remand,
and upon further consideration, the Sixth Circuit again affirmed. Id. Whirlpool
again petitioned the Supreme Court for a Writ of Certiorari; this time, it was de-
nied. Whirlpool Corp. v. Glazer, 134 S. Ct. 1277 (2014).6 In 2014, four years after
6 The full appellate history of the Whirlpool MDL court’s class certification ruling is as
follows: In re Whirlpool Corp. Front-Loading Washer Products Liab. Litig., 2010 WL
Leonard v. Sears, No. 06 C 7023 Page 9 of 24
the Ohio class was originally certified, the Whirlpool case finally returned to the
district court.
Whirlpool promptly filed a motion to decertify the class, while plaintiffs moved to
modify the class definition. The district court denied the motion to decertify, noting
it was “bound by the Sixth Circuit’s mandate, including its conclusion that, even
though ‘Whirlpool claims that commonality is defeated because the Duets were built
over a period of years on two different [engineering] platforms, resulting in the pro-
duction of twenty-one different models during the relevant time frame,’ class certifi-
cation is appropriate because there exists a ‘common question of whether design de-
fects cause mold growth . . . across the manufacturing spectrum Whirlpool de-
scribes.’” In re Whirlpool Corp. Front-Loading Washer Prods. Liab. Litig., 302
F.R.D. 448, 452 (N.D. Ohio 2014) (“Whirlpool Class Cert. Order II”) (quoting Whirl-
pool II, 722 F.3d at 854).
Following all the appellate litigation, plaintiffs asked the MDL court to “modify
the existing class definition by adding four exclusions: (1) all machines manufac-
tured after December 31, 2008, including all ALPHA [engineering platform] ma-
chines; (2) all SIERRA [engineering platform] machines; (3) all machines that have
a steam feature; and (4) all machines that have a plastic tub with only longitudinal
reinforcing ribs.” Id. at 460. The MDL district court agreed with plaintiffs that it
2756947 (N.D. Ohio July 12, 2010), affirmed, 678 F.3d 409 (6th Cir. 2012), rehearing and
rehearing en banc denied (6th Cir. 2012), cert. granted, judgment vacated sub nom. Whirl-
pool Corp. v. Glazer, 133 S. Ct. 1722 (2013), and affirmed, 722 F.3d 838 (6th Cir. 2013), cert
denied, 134 S. Ct. 1277 (2014).
Leonard v. Sears, No. 06 C 7023 Page 10 of 24
was appropriate to “assure commonality by re-defining the class to better reflect
new evidence regarding exactly which Duet washer models have the alleged design
defect.” Id. at 461. But the court further found “the proper re-definition is not the
one Plaintiffs propose.” Id. Rather, the court undertook a model-by-model analysis,
identified those that had the alleged design defects, and included only those models
in the class. See id. at 462 (“Plaintiffs’ theory is that all models of Duet washers
that had plastic tubs or metal brackets with crevices were defective, because the
crevices caused the machines to suffer mold problems. * * * [T]he better approach is
to identify precisely those model numbers and their manufacture dates that did
have plastic tubs or metal brackets with crevices, and include only those Duets
within the class.”). This modified class definition included 20 models of Duets, with
some models limited by manufacture-dates. Id. at 451.
The Ohio-class Whirlpool case went to trial and a jury found in favor of Whirl-
pool.7 Because the issues and arguments raised in this case and in Whirlpool are
nearly identical, and because this Court agrees with the bulk of the reasoning in the
Whirlpool MDL court’s Class Cert. Order II, this Order adopts much of that analy-
sis.
C. The Washing Machines at Issue
Plaintiffs have amended their proposed class definition several times. Their
most recent request is for certification of a an Illinois-only class of “All persons or
7 Plaintiffs have filed an appeal of the Whirlpool MDL verdict. Whirlpool has filed a
conditional cross-appeal, asserting that, if the court does reverse the verdict and remand, it
should also reverse the district court’s denial of Whirlpool’s motion to decertify the class.
Leonard v. Sears, No. 06 C 7023 Page 11 of 24
entities who purchased, not for resale, any Kenmore front-load washing machine
manufactured by Whirlpool through 2008, without a steam feature, other than
those [machines] built on the ‘Sierra’ [engineering] platform.” (Dkt. 381 at 1-2; Dkt.
471).
This class definition includes numerous models of Kenmore washers. See Butler
I, 702 F.3d at 361 (“Sears contends that during the period covered by the complaint
it sold 27 different Kenmore-brand models”). The parties recently submitted a chart
clarifying that: (a) Whirlpool manufactured 37 different models of Kenmore front-
load washers from 2001 through 2008; and (b) plaintiffs’ most-recent proposed class
would include 29 of these 37 models in the class. The eight models plaintiffs would
exclude were either produced on the Sierra engineering platform or had the “steam
feature.” See chart appended to the end of this Order.
The parties’ chart shows that Whirlpool made several design changes to the
Kenmore machines over time. These changes included both structural modifications
to the machines and also the addition of different laundry cycles and optional selec-
tions. Some of these changes are listed here:8
• Modifications to the plastic tub, which holds the wash-water and with-
in which the metal laundry-basket revolves. Whirlpool redesigned the
plastic tub several times to remove water-side structural ribs, which
tended to gather mold. See example photographs below. There are at
least three different plastic tub designs in various Kenmore models;
plaintiffs seek to include two of these tub designs in the class.
• Modifications to the metal bracket (also called the “crosspiece”), which
sits inside the plastic tub and connects the metal laundry-basket to the
8 These changes are discussed at length in the parties’ expert reports.
Leonard v. Sears, No. 06 C 7023 Page 12 of 24
revolving motor spindle. Whirlpool redesigned the bracket several
times to remove structural crevices,9 which tended to gather mold. See
example photographs below. There are at least four different bracket
designs in various Kenmore models; plaintiffs seek to include three of
these bracket designs in the class. Whirlpool also modified the mostly-
aluminum bracket to contain less copper, which tended to corrode and
cause pitting, allowing mold accumulation.
• Addition of a “sanitary cycle” allowing the user to super-heat the wash-
water to about 160°, thereby sanitizing the laundry and also reducing
accumulation of bacteria and mold.
• Addition of a “maintenance cycle” or “clean washer cycle.” This is a
laundry cycle that allows the user to run the washer with no laundry
inside the machine. After the tub fills with water, the user adds bleach
or other machine-cleaning additives, and the water is agitated to
“scrub” the interior of the otherwise-empty tub, reducing bacteria and
mold.
• Addition of a “steam feature.” This is an optional selection that helps
sanitize the machine’s interior and prevent accumulation of bacteria
and mold. Like the “extra rinse” option, the user of the washing ma-
chine may choose to add the steam feature to a laundry cycle, or not;
the steam feature does not normally operate unless added by the user.
9 The Court uses the terms “crevices” and “cavities” interchangeably, although Whirl-
pool and Sears have suggested there is a difference depending on the size and shape of the
indentation.
Leonard v. Sears, No. 06 C 7023 Page 13 of 24
Access 2001 Design
Sierra 2007 Design
Sears Kenmore Washing Machines—Plastic Tub and Metal Bracket
(The bracket fits into the back of the metal clothes basket, which is not
shown; all surfaces inside the tub—including the entire bracket—get wet
during a wash cycle.)
In addition to these structural design changes, Sears also made several amend-
ments over time to the washers’ “Use and Care Guides” (“UCGs”). These amend-
ments instructed the user to perform various actions in order to minimize mold
formation, such as leaving the washer door ajar between uses, removing mildew
stains on the rubber door seal by cleaning it with bleach, and using high-efficiency
laundry detergent.
Because Whirlpool built the Kenmore washing machines using different engi-
neering “platforms,” it did not introduce the above-mentioned structural design
changes to all of the Kenmore models at the same time. For example, Whirlpool has
Leonard v. Sears, No. 06 C 7023 Page 14 of 24
manufactured Kenmore machines using: (1) the “ACCESS” platform, in Germany;
(2) the “HORIZON” platform, in Mexico; (3) the “SIERRA” platform, in Mexico; and
(4) the “MATADOR” platform, in Germany. In 2007, Whirlpool first incorporated
plastic tubs with a rib-free interior in Kenmore machines built on the SIERRA plat-
form; but Whirlpool continued to incorporate plastic tubs with interior ribs on all
Kenmore machines built on other platforms. That is why plaintiffs seek to exclude
SIERRA machines from the class. Further, Whirlpool added optional cycles to dif-
ferent Kenmore models at different times. For example, Whirlpool first added a
maintenance cycle to certain MATADOR models in 2005, and installed either the
maintenance cycle or clean washer cycle on all HORIZON models at about the same
time; but Whirlpool never added either of these two cycles to any ACCESS model.
Similarly, Whirlpool first added the steam feature to certain MATADOR models in
2007 but never added the steam feature to any HORIZON model. A chart of the 37
different Kenmore models whose manufacture began between 2000 and 2008, show-
ing relevant design features, is appended to the end of this Order. The models are
listed in order of when their production began (column 4). The models highlighted in
yellow in the chart appended to this order10 are the ones included in the class defi-
nition.
10 The models included in the class definition are in rows 1-27 and 31-32.
Leonard v. Sears, No. 06 C 7023 Page 15 of 24
III. ANALYSIS
A. Propriety of Class Certification
When the Court addressed plaintiffs’ motion for certification of a “mold class”
four years ago, it set out the applicable legal standard: “An action may be certified
as a class action if the putative class satisfies all four requirements of Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(a)—numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of rep-
resentation—and any one of the conditions of Rule 23(b).” (Dkt. 285 at 7) (citing
Siegel v. Shell Oil Co., 612 F.3d 932, 935 (7th Cir. 2010)). Sears did not dispute that
plaintiffs met the numerosity and adequacy requirements, and the Court easily con-
cluded plaintiffs also met the commonality and typicality requirements. (See id. at
7-8). The Court denied class certification, however, because it concluded plaintiffs
could not meet “the requirement of Rule 23(b)(3): that questions of law or fact com-
mon to class members “‘predominate over any questions affecting only individual
members.’” (Id. at 8).
In reversing this decision however, the Seventh Circuit found that “[t]here is a
single, central, common issue of liability: whether the Sears washing machine was
defective.” Butler II, 727 F.3d at 801; see Butler I, 702 F.3d at 361 (“The basic ques-
tion in the litigation—were the machines defective in permitting mold to accumu-
late and generate noxious odors?—is common to the entire mold class, although the
answer may vary with the differences in design.”); see also Butler II, 727 F.3d at 802
(citing with approval the Sixth Circuit’s Whirlpool II conclusion that “the require-
ment of predominance ha[s] been satisfied”). Indeed, the Seventh Circuit concluded
Leonard v. Sears, No. 06 C 7023 Page 16 of 24
that “[a] class action is the efficient procedure for litigation of a case such as this, a
case involving a defect that may have imposed costs on tens of thousands of con-
sumers, yet not a cost to any one of them large enough to justify the expense of an
individual suit.” Butler II, 727 F.3d at 798; see Butler I, 702 F.3d at 362 (“Predomi-
nance is a question of efficiency.”). Accordingly, the appellate court reversed the de-
nial of certification of the mold class. Butler II, 727 F.3d at 802.
Further, in Whirlpool—which, for all practical purposes, is identical to this case
regarding matters relevant to class certification—the Sixth Circuit ruled that “the
district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the Rule 23(a) prerequisites
of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequate representation are satisfied
for certification of a liability class only.” Whirlpool II, 722 F.3d at 858. The Sixth
Circuit “also confirm[ed] the presence of predominance and superiority.” Id. Thus,
this issue has had a full airing before both the Sixth and Seventh Circuits, which
have both opined that certification of a mold class is appropriate. Almost ten years
after this lawsuit was filed, it is time to reach the merits.
Despite this overwhelming authority in plaintiffs’ favor, Sears still opposes
plaintiffs’ motion and offers a number of reasons why class certification is improper.
But the Sixth and Seventh Circuits have already “address[ed] and reject[ed] virtual-
ly all of [Sears’] current arguments.” Whirlpool Class Cert. Order II, 302 F.R.D. at
469 (denying defendant’s motion to decertify). For example, Sears asserts that
plaintiffs Freeman and Lemley “are not typical because their claims arise from a
different ‘practice’ or ‘course of conduct’—i.e., different Washer designs—than do the
Leonard v. Sears, No. 06 C 7023 Page 17 of 24
claims of many other buyers.” (Dkt. 385 at 20) (emphasis added). When the Court
originally addressed the propriety of class certification, however, it disagreed:
A plaintiff’s claim is typical for purposes of Rule 23(a) analysis “if it
arises from the same event or practice or course of conduct that gives
rise to the claims of other class members and his or her claims are
based on the same legal theory.” * * * Typicality may be satisfied even
if there are factual distinctions between the claims of the named plain-
tiffs and those of other class members. * * * In the present case, even
though plaintiffs may have suffered or noticed mold problems to differ-
ent degrees, their claims are all based upon the same course of Sears
conduct: the sale of a washer type that is alleged to be unduly prone to
the problem. The court therefore concludes that the named plaintiffs’
claims are typical of those of the class they seek to represent.
(Dkt. 285 at 7) (citations omitted). Moreover, the Seventh Circuit explicitly rejected
the argument that class certification must be denied because the various washer
models have different designs:
Sears contends that Whirlpool (the manufacturer of the washing ma-
chines) made a number of design modifications, and as a result differ-
ent models are differently defective; Sears does not contend that any of
the design changes eliminated the odor problem, only that they dimin-
ished it. The basic question presented by the mold claim—are the ma-
chines defective in permitting mold to accumulate and generate nox-
ious odors?—is common to the entire mold class, although damages are
likely to vary across class members (the owners of the washing ma-
chines).
Butler II, 727 F.3d at 798. The Sixth Circuit agreed, noting that, even though the
Ohio class of Whirlpool washer owners included over 20 different models, common
evidence “will either prove or disprove as to all class members whether the alleged
design defects caused the collection of biofilm, promoting mold growth.” Whirlpool
II, 722 F.3d at 859 (emphasis added). In sum, Sears’ argument that the class should
Leonard v. Sears, No. 06 C 7023 Page 18 of 24
not be certified because Freeman’s and Lemley’s claims are not typical is wholly
unpersuasive.
Sears also persists in objecting to class certification with its assertion that
“plaintiffs cannot prove a common, classwide injury” because not “all Washers build
up such an excessive amount of [mold] that it . . . prevents adequate cleaning of
clothes.” (Dkt. 385 at 16) (emphasis in original). The Seventh Circuit has repeatedly
observed that “a class will often include persons who have not been injured by the
defendant’s conduct * * * [and this] possibility or indeed inevitability does not pre-
clude class certification.” Kohen v. Pac. Inv. Mgmt. Co. LLC, 571 F.3d 672, 677 (7th
Cir. 2009); see also In re IKO Roofing Shingle Prods. Liab. Litig., 757 F.3d 599, 603
(7th Cir. 2014) (rejecting the “mistaken belief that ‘commonality of damages’ is le-
gally indispensable” for class certification, and citing Butler II); Suchanek v. Sturm
Foods, Inc., 764 F.3d 750, 757 (7th Cir. 2014) (citing Butler II and holding: “If the
[district] court thought that no class can be certified until proof exists that every
member has been harmed, it was wrong.”). Similarly, the Sixth Circuit rejected this
argument in Whirlpool “[b]ecause all [washer] owners were injured at the point of
sale upon paying a premium price for the [washers] as designed, even those owners
who have not experienced a mold problem are properly included within the certified
class.” Whirlpool II, 722 F.3d at 857.11
11 In Illinois, “[i]n order to prove a breach of an implied warranty of merchantability,
plaintiff must prove [1] that [the product] was defective and [2] that the defect(s) existed
when the [product] left defendant’s control.” Alvarez v. American Isuzu Motors, 321 Ill. App.
3d 696, 702-03 (Ill. Ct. App. 2001). The measure of damages for breach of implied warranty
Leonard v. Sears, No. 06 C 7023 Page 19 of 24
In fact, the Seventh Circuit explained that Sears’ argument—that some plain-
tiffs did not suffer any harm from the alleged defect—actually adds weight to plain-
tiffs’ position: “Sears argued that most members of the plaintiff class had not expe-
rienced any mold problem. But if so, we pointed out, that was an argument not for
refusing to certify the class but for certifying it and then entering a judgment that
would largely exonerate Sears—a course it should welcome, as all class members
who did not opt out of the class action would be bound by the judgment.” Butler II,
727 F.3d at 796; see also Suchanek, 764 F.3d at 757-58 (quoting this observation
from Butler II and noting it remains true even “[i]f very few members of the class
were harmed”).
In sum, Sears’ perseverance in opposing class certification is overwhelmed by the
constancy of the appellate court conclusions pointedly holding otherwise. The only
real question, which the Whirlpool MDL court also examined, is what the class def-
inition should be. The Court turns to that question next.
B. Class Definition
The named plaintiffs seek to represent a class of owners of only certain Kenmore
washers with particular design features, (without a steam feature, other than those
built on the “Sierra” platform), and the Court has been given no reason to expand or
“is the difference at the time and place of acceptance between the value of the goods accept-
ed and the value they would have if they had been as warranted.” Shoop v. DaimlerChrysler
Corp., 371 Ill. App. 3d 1058, 1061 (Ill. Ct. App. 2007) (quoting UCC § 2-714(2)); see also But-
ler I, 702 F.3d at 362 (“class members who have not yet encountered odor can still obtain
damages for breach of warranty, where state law allows such relief— relief for an expected
rather than for only a realized harm from a product defect covered by an express or implied
warranty”).
Leonard v. Sears, No. 06 C 7023 Page 20 of 24
contract this proposal. Accordingly, as did the Whirlpool MDL court (and for the
same reasons, see Whirlpool Class Cert. Order II, 302 F.R.D. at 463-65), this Court
will accept plaintiffs’ proposed definitional limitation that the class definition not
include machines built on the Sierra platform. Contrary to the decision by the
Whirlpool MDL court, this Court will also exclude machines with the steam fea-
ture.12
This leaves the question of whether to adopt plaintiffs’ proposal that the class be
defined to include “machine[s] manufactured by Whirlpool through 2008.” (Dkt.
381 at 1-2 (emphasis added)). The Whirlpool MDL court set out a cogent analysis of
why the use of a specific date was imprecise and unwieldy, as opposed to defining
the class by reference to specific model numbers, which had different dates of manu-
facture. See Whirlpool Class Cert. Order II, 302 F.R.D. at 462 (“The problem with
using any single date certain as a cut-off in this case, however, is that it will be ei-
ther under- or over-inclusive, or both.”).13 This Court adopts the same approach—
12 The Court has carefully reviewed the Whirlpool MDL court’s reasoning behind its de-
cision to include machines with the steam feature, see Whirlpool Class Cert. Order II, 302
F.R.D. at 465-67. The Court reaches a different conclusion because the procedural stance of
this case is meaningfully different. In Whirlpool, plaintiffs originally asked for certification
of all models of Duet washers; the MDL court granted that request and, in addition to the
fact that the Sixth Circuit had affirmed the decision to certify the class as defined, exten-
sive discovery was completed based on the decision to include machines with the steam fea-
ture. Whirlpool Class Cert. Order II, 302 F.R.D. at 459-60 (“Once a class is certified, the
parties can be expected to rely on it and conduct discovery, prepare for trial, and engage in
settlement discussions on the assumption that in the normal course of events it will not be
altered except for good cause.”) Here, to the contrary, there has never been a class certified
in this case. Further, Sears has not objected to plaintiffs’ proposed scope of the class—only
to whether the class should be certified at all.
13 The Whirlpool MDL court explained: “Rather than choosing a single cut-off date ap-
proximating when most such Duet models no longer had tubs or brackets with crevices—or,
Leonard v. Sears, No. 06 C 7023 Page 21 of 24
that is, rather than limiting the class to include only washers manufactured before
a single end-date, the Court has defined the class to include all of those washer
models with the alleged design defect and without the steam feature, regardless of
when each model was manufactured.
Accordingly, the chart contained within the Court’s class definition sets out pre-
cisely those Kenmore model numbers and manufacture dates that are appropriately
included in the class. The earliest Kenmore that is included, model 110.4292*, was
first manufactured on January 12, 2001; the latest Kenmore washer that is includ-
ed, model 110.4756*, was manufactured through October 11, 2010; and the class in-
cludes a total of 29 different models manufactured during this span of almost ten
years.
The Court adds the following observations regarding the question of subclasses.
The Seventh Circuit stated that, “if it turn[s] out as the litigation unfold[s] that
there [are] large differences in the mold problem among the differently designed
washing machines, the district judge might decide to create subclasses.” Butler II,
727 F.3d at 798.
as Plaintiffs put it, ‘a cut-off [date] in close proximity to when the material shifts in design
occurred’—the better approach is to identify precisely those model numbers and their man-
ufacture dates that did have plastic tubs or metal brackets with crevices, and include only
those Duets within the class. This new definition adds factual and legal clarity and fairness
to the scope of the class, allowing both sides to better focus on the remaining issues.”
Whirlpool Class Cert. Order II, 302 F.R.D. at 462.
Leonard v. Sears, No. 06 C 7023 Page 22 of 24
For several reasons, the Court concludes it will not require creation of subclasses
for different washer models at this point.14 First, plaintiffs have not requested sub-
classing. Moreover, plaintiffs have consistently asserted that the defect causing the
mold problem is the same across all washer models. Plaintiffs assert this is true re-
gardless of whether, for example, the model has a clean washer cycle or a sanitary
cycle, and regardless of which of the two creviced plastic tub designs the model em-
ploys. Unless and until it appears to the Court that different washer models had
meaningfully different mold problems, subclassing is not appropriate.
IV. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL; NOTICE TO THE CLASS
The Court appoints the following law firms as class counsel: (1) Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP; (2) Carey Danis & Lowe; and (3) Chimicles & Tikellis,
LLP.
14 As the Seventh Circuit noted, the necessity of subclasses may only become clear “as
the litigation unfold[s].” Butler II, 727 F.3d at 798. Accordingly, the Court may come to a
different conclusion regarding future trials.
Leonard v. Sears, No. 06 C 7023 Page 23 of 24
Within 30 days of the date of this Order, Class Counsel shall submit to the Court
a proposed Plan of Notice, including methods of service and approximate time for
completion of service. The proposed Plan shall provide the best notice practicable to
all persons who are members of the class, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B).
If possible, the parties should stipulate to the proposed Plan of Notice. Class Coun-
sel shall carry out the Plan of Notice only after approval by the Court.
Dated: July 20, 2015
E N T E R:
MARY M. ROWLAND
United States Magistrate Judge
Leonard v. Sears, No. 06 C 7023 Page 24 of 24
Included in Class
Sierra Machine Whirlpool-Manufactured, Kenmore-Brand Front-Loading Washer Models 2001 - 2010
Steam Feature
Plaintiff Freeman's Washer
Plaintiff Lemley's Washer
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13
Model No.
Begins
With
Model by Color
Breakdown Model
Name Production
Begins** Production
Ends** Platform Part of
Class?
Crosspiece
Has
Cavities?
Tub Has
Cavities? Steam? Sanitary
Cycle?
Maintenance
(M) or Clean
Washer (C)
C
y
cle?
1 110.4292* 42922 (White),
42924 (Bisque),
42926
(
Graphite
)
HE3t 1/12/2001 6/11/2004 Access Yes Yes Yes No Yes No
2 110.4293* 42932 (White),
42934 (Bisque),
42936
(
Graphite
)
HE3t 2/7/2001 12/5/2003 Access Yes Yes Yes No Yes No
3 110.4282* 42822 (White),
42824 (Bisque),
42826
(
Graphite
)
HE3 4/10/2001 7/7/2004 Access Yes Yes Yes No No No
4 110.4283* 42832 (White),
42836
(
Graphite
)
HE3 6/28/2001 5/28/2003 Access Yes Yes Yes No No No
5 110.4483* 44832 (White),
44836 (Graphite),
44834
(
Bisque
)
HE3 3/4/2002 6/11/2004 Access Yes Yes Yes No No No
6 110.4493* 44932 (White),
44934 (Bisque),
44936
(
Graphite
)
HE3t 10/4/2002 9/10/2004 Access Yes Yes Yes No Yes No
7 110.45091 HE4t 5/5/2003 9/15/2006 Matador 1 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes after July
2005
(
M
)
8 110.4508*
45081 (White),
45087 (Pacific Blue),
45088 (Champagne),
45089
(
Sedona
)
HE4t 5/5/2003 10/30/2006 Matador 1 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes after July
2005 (M)
9 110.44826 HE3 7/28/2003 6/29/2004 Access Yes Yes Yes No No No
10 110.44921 HE3t 8/18/2003 7/14/2004 Access Yes Yes Yes No Yes No
11 110.45862 HE3 1/5/2004 9/27/2006 Matador 1 Yes Yes Yes No No Yes after July
2005
(
M
)
12 110.4598* 45981 (White-on-White),
45986
(
Graphite
)
HE4t 1/6/2004 7/28/2006 Matador 1 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes after July
2005
(
M
)
13 110.43902 HE3t 1/8/2004 5/17/2004 Access Yes Yes Yes No Yes No
14 110.4599*
45991 (White-on-White),
45992 (White),
45994 (Bisque),
45996
(
Graphite
)
HE4t 1/19/2004 7/28/2006 Matador 1 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes after July
2005 (M)
15 110.4596* 45962 (White),
45966
(
Graphite
)
HE3t 6/8/2004 10/6/2006 Matador 1 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes after July
2005
(
M
)
16 110.4597* 45972 (White),
45976
(
Graphite
)
HE3t 6/21/2004 10/6/2006 Matador 1 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes after July
2005
(
M
)
17 110.45872 HE3 7/5/2004 5/19/2006 Matador 1 Yes Yes Yes No No Yes after July
2005
(
M
)
Page 1 of 2
Included in Class
Sierra Machine Whirlpool-Manufactured, Kenmore-Brand Front-Loading Washer Models 2001 - 2010
Steam Feature
Plaintiff Freeman's Washer
Plaintiff Lemley's Washer
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13
Model No.
Begins
With
Model by Color
Breakdown Model
Name Production
Begins** Production
Ends** Platform Part of
Class?
Crosspiece
Has
Cavities?
Tub Has
Cavities? Steam? Sanitary
Cycle?
Maintenance
(M) or Clean
Washer (C)
C
y
cle?
18 110.46472 HE2 6/13/2005 6/9/2006 Horizon Yes No Yes No No Yes (M)
19 110.46462 HE2 8/1/2005 6/2/2006 Horizon Yes No Yes No No Yes (M)
20 110.4756* 47561 (White-on-White),
47566 (Black),
47567 (Pacific Blue) HE2t 8/15/2005 10/11/2010 Horizon Yes No Yes No Yes Yes (C)
21 110.4751* 47511 (White),
47512
(
White-on-White
)
HE2 Plus 1/5/2006 11/5/2009 Horizon Yes No Yes No No Yes (C)
22 110.49972 HE3t 1/26/2006 10/17/2008 Matador 2 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes (C)
23 110.49962 HE3t 4/3/2006 11/4/2009 Matador 2 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes (C)
24 110.4708*
47081 (White),
47086 (Black),
47087 (Pacific Blue),
47088 (Champagne),
47089
(
Barolo
)
HE5t 4/4/2006 10/7/2009 Matador 2 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes (C)
25 110.4753* 47531 (White),
47532
(
White-on-White
)
HE2 Plus 4/24/2006 4/14/2009 Horizon Yes No Yes No No Yes (C)
26 110.4757* 47571 (White-on-White),
47577 (Pacific Blue) HE2t 8/7/2006 8/21/2009 Horizon Yes No Yes No Yes Yes (C)
27 110.47091 HE5t 10/4/2006 3/27/2009 Matador 2 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes (C)
28 110.46742 HE3t Steam 1/8/2007 11/10/2009 Matador 2B No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (C)
29 110.4778* 47781 (White),
47789
(
Barolo
)
HE5t Steam 1/26/2007 4/10/2009 Matador 2B No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (C)
30 110.47791 HE5t Steam 2/6/2007 6/27/2008 Matador 2B No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (C)
31 110.47852 HE3 3/5/2007 6/14/2007 Matador 2 Yes Yes Yes No No Yes (C)
32 110.47542 HE2 Plus 6/6/2007 11/4/2008 Horizon Yes No Yes No No Yes (C)
33 110.46752 HE3t Steam 7/20/2007 7/3/2009 Matador 2B No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (C)
34 110.4775* 47751 (Chai),
47787 (Twilight),
47788
(
Truffle
)
HE5t Steam 1/18/2008 9/25/2009 Sierra/
Matador 3 No No No Yes Yes Yes (C)
35 110.4776* 47761 (Chai),
47797 (Twilight),
47798
(
Truffle
)
HE5t Steam 7/11/2008 9/18/2009 Sierra/
Matador 3 No No No Yes Yes Yes (C)
36 110.47701 HE5t Steam 8/25/2008 9/25/2009 Sierra No No No Yes Steam Yes (C)
37 110.47711 HE5t Steam 10/6/2008 12/5/2008 Sierra No No No Yes Steam Yes (C)
** The starting and ending production dates for each model vary by color. The chart provides the earliest start and latest end dates for each model, regardless of color.
Page 2 of 2
