In Speerly v. General Motors, LLC, — F.4th —-, 2025 WL 1775640 (6th Cir. June 27, 2025) (en banc), the Sixth Circuit made it harder for plaintiffs to certify a class with multiple state-law causes of action and multiple subclasses when it vacated a district court order certifying multiple state-specific subclasses of automotive purchasers.

Plaintiffs made two different allegations about problems with the automatic transmissions in their cars.  First, some plaintiffs alleged that their automatic transmission would shake or shudder due to the transmission fluid absorbing moisture from the air.  Three years after introducing the transmission with the shudder problem, the manufacturer developed a new transmission fluid that fixed the shudder and informed dealers about the fix.  Second, some plaintiffs alleged an “unrelated” shift problem on their automatic transmissions which could result in jerky shifts or a period where the car remained in neutral even after it was placed in drive.  In all, plaintiffs from thirty-two states brought 104 separate claims against the manufacturer under state-law causes of action for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, violation of state consumer protection statutes, and fraudulent omission.

The district court certified 26 statewide subclasses covering approximately 800,000 individuals.  Each state subclass involved multiple causes of action.

The Sixth Circuit decision heavily criticized the use of multiple subclasses for causes of action under multiple state laws for multiple alleged defects. The court held that common questions must be related to the elements of individual claims, so generalized questions about the “defect” were insufficient to establish a common question. 

The court also indicated that it would be difficult for plaintiffs to show common questions predominated because of the challenges in managing one trial for multiple state law issues, and the multiple theories of defect.  The court highlighted potential problems with managing a “bulky multi-state class action,” such as deciding legal questions from different states, the need for a representative jury (or juries), and the problem of creating jury instructions under multiple state laws.  The court also highlighted how confusing the multiple defects could be.  The Sixth Circuit therefore vacated the class certification decision and instructed the district court to consider “whether common questions do, or do not, predominate [by including] all of the elements of each legal claim at the outset.”