Electrolux Washing Machine Class Action Lawsuit Denied Certification

On July 1, 2014, U.S. District Judge Dale S. Fischer denied certification for a proposed class action lawsuit accusing Electrolux Home Products Inc. of knowingly marketing and selling defective washing machines that were prone to overflowing.  Judge Fisher’s decision was based on the belief that the proposed Class did not have enough in common to warrant Class certification.

The case is separate from an Electrolux dryer class action settlement reached in May that is providing cash and rebates to consumers who purchased or currently own a new Frigidaire, White Westinghouse, Kelvinator, Gibson, Tappan, Crosley or Kenmore brand ball-hitch freestanding clothes dryer manufactured by Electrolux between Jan. 1, 2002 and Dec. 31, 2011.

Electrolux is a multinational appliance manufacturer based out of Stockholm, Sweden; it currently stands as the second largest appliance maker in the world, only surpassed by Whirpool. According to the Electrolux class action lawsuit, numerous Electrolux washing machine owners have encountered problems and defects with their various washing machine models.

The Electrolux washing machine class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court by plaintiff Sparks Landen, who alleges that the air hose in his Electrolux washing machine was prone to coming loose during a wash cycle, causing the machine to overflow. Landen alleges that Electrolux Home Products Inc. knowingly sold their washing machines despite this allegedly known defect.

Earlier in these court proceedings, Judge Fisher denied Electrolux’s motion to dismiss Landen’s class action claims, because Judge Fisher was concerned with the potential dangers posed to consumers from the alleged appliance flaw. However, when asked to identify the aspect in the Electrolux washer designs which made all the models included in the class action lawsuit prone to defect, Landen claimed that the air hose, air dome, and pressure switch’s themselves were enough to provide commonalities in this class action lawsuit.

In defense, Electrolux’s legal counsel called upon their expert witness Dr. Jahan Rasty to discuss the differences in washer model designs, in which he “cogently outlines a number of differences among the washers included in the class that could affect whether any given washer design is defective.” During the court proceedings, Landen allegedly attempted to ignore the differences among the washing machine models, which Judge Fisher states, “make those designs not defective,” thus making Landen unable to provide enough commonalities between all the Electrolux machine products to warrant a class action lawsuit certification.

If the Electrolux class action lawsuit had been certified, then according to Judge Fisher, “[Landen] would presumably have to prove at trial that the differences in each model were immaterial, which suggests that class treatment is inappropriate.”

In Class certifications, it is the plaintiff’s responsibility and burden to show that the common issues trumps all other product features, not the defendant’s (in this case Electrolux’s) responsibility to prove that they do not.

In light of this evidence provided by Dr. Rasty and Landen’s refusal to engage with this evidence or provide evidence of common product defects to the contrary, Judge Fisher denied Landon’s motion for Class certification.

Sparks Landen is represented by Jerome L. Ringler and Catherine Burke Schmidt of Ringler Schmidt ALC and Michael S. Rapkin and Scott Brian Rapkin of the Law Offices of Michael S. Rapkin.

The Electrolux Washing Machine Class Action Lawsuit is Sparks Landen v. Electrolux Home Products Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-01033, in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.