Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that plaintiff had shown commonality where all class vehicles suffered same “geometry defect in the vehicles’ alignment”
• holding that common questions predominated with respect to plaintiffs’ claims under state consumer protection laws because the merits of the claims did “not overlap with the predominance inquiry”
• holding that a putative class action satisfied predominance because the allegations were susceptible to proof by generalized evidence
• concluding that plaintiffs demonstrated a common “defect 7 exists in the alignment geometry, not the tires,” despite evidence of “tire wear due to 8 individual factors”
• concluding that “[t]ypicality 22 1 the defect” and plaintiffs, “like the rest of the class, may have a viable claim regardless of the manifestation of the defect”
• noting that a geometric defect in vehicle alignment was alleged to be present in each class member's car

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).