Speerly v. General Motors

In this product defect litigation, automobile purchasers sued General Motors alleging a latent defect in the transmission systems of certain vehicles. The district court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, and General Motors appealed. On appeal, General Motors argued that class certification violated Article III because the defect had not yet manifested in the vehicle of each class member. Public Citizen filed an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs, explaining that Article III does not pose a jurisdictional barrier to certification of a class that might contain uninjured class members. The Sixth Circuit ruled that the plaintiffs had Article III standing and affirmed the district court’s grant of class certification.

General Motors then filed a petition seeking rehearing en banc that challenged, among other things, the panel’s holding on Article III. In an amicus brief opposing General Motors’ petition, Public Citizen explained that the panel’s holding is consistent with the decisions of other courts of appeal and is correct, and that requiring all class members to show Article III standing at certification would create practical problems at odds with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.