Gonzalez v. Owens Corning — civil / class action — affirmance — Hardiman
The Third Circuit today affirmed a district court’s order denying class certification in a high-stakes consumer-class-action appeal. The underlying suit alleged that Owens Corning sold roof shingles with warranties of 25 years or more when, in reality, their expected useful life was considerably shorter.
The court affirmed because the proposed class ” cannot satisfy Rule 23(a)’s commonality requirement because the only common question it poses can be answered only by way of an advisory opinion, which is forbidden by Article III.” There was a key legal issue that was common to the class–whether a particular defense applied to their claims–but Owens Corning promised not to raise the defense, so the Court ruled that deciding the issue would amount to an advisory opinion.
The court also rejected the plaintiffs argument that the shingles were a defective product where not all of them had the defect causing premature failure.
Joining Hardiman were Chagares and Jordan. Arguing counsel were Professor Robert Klonoff of Oregon for the plaintiffs and Carter Phillips of Sidley Austin for Owens Corning.