A California federal court declined to certify a class of consumers accusing a manufacturer of designing a baby seat that is allegedly prone to having unhealthy mold. See Butler v. Mattel Inc. et al., No. 2:13-cv-00306 (C.D. Calif.).
Plaintiffs move to certify a nationwide class of individuals who “acquired” a Fisher-Price Rock ‘N Play Sleeper (Sleeper) prior to January 8, 2013. The court’s analysis focused on predominance. The predominance inquiry under Rule 23(b) tests whether proposed classes are
sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation. Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 623 (1997) (citation omitted). The thrust of plaintiffs’ case was that the Sleeper is defective because it has a “dangerous propensity” to grow mold. From that proposition, plaintiffs raised several claims for product defects and misrepresentations about the quality of the Sleeper.
The court concluded that plaintiffs’ bid to have the case handled on a class basis failed because they could not establish that any actual defect was common to the entire class. There was ample evidence in the record that the vast majority of the proposed class did not experience mold growth on the Sleeper to a degree that they saw fit to complain to defendant or to the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
The Sleeper was only alleged to have a “propensity” for mold growth – which the court saw as an issue separate and apart from the issue of an actual reaction by the consumer to whatever mold may be present. There was no evidence that every Sleeper developed notable levels of mold and ample evidence that most of them did not. Based on the record before the court, it appeared that the vast majority of the proposed class, for whatever reason, was in no way affected by the alleged increased propensity of the Sleeper to grow mold. It was not clear whether any child suffered a reaction or injury. There was merely a limited “recall” by which defendants provided additional care instructions for cleaning any mold that may occur.
This meant that many of the proposed class members likely do not have standing to raise the class claims, and whether or not a particular class member has standing was an individual issue that was not amenable to class treatment. Only class members who actually experienced mold or who could show that their particular circumstances made it likely that they would actually experience a mold issue would likely have standing, said the court.
The dispositive issue of standing thus was not common to all class members and must be
addressed on an individual basis. The overarching importance of this question predominated over any common questions that may exist as it was impossible to award class wide relief without consideration of standing.
Class certification denied.