Just because something is common doesn’t mean it’s predominate, and it definitely doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. Colds are common. So are traffic jams, mosquitos, and people who say, “Let’s circle back.” None of those things are dominant forces of greatness—they’re just annoyances we’ve sadly grown used to. Like plaintiffs seeking to certify products liability personal injury class actions by arguing: “Oh look, everyone got hurt by the same product. Let’s group them together and knock this out like a Netflix binge!” Fortunately, as evidenced by our cheat sheet, federal courts resoundingly say: No. Personal injury claims are simply too individualized to be redressed collectively.
Sure, products liability cases do share common issues—was the product defective, can the product cause the alleged injury? But commonality isn’t king. For a class action to work, the common issues have to drive the resolution of the case—not be drowned out by a flood of “but my situation is different” claims. Which essentially is what the court told plaintiffs in Candelaria v. Conopco, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126314 (E.D.N.Y. Jul. 2, 2025).
Candelaria is about shampoo. But its applicability to the DDL world is apparent by the number of DDL cases cited in the opinion. Plaintiff sought to certify a class pursuant to Federal Rule 23(c)(4) which allows a court to certify a class on “designated issues” even if the case or claims overall do not satisfy Rule 23’s class certification requirements. However, issue certification must “materially advance a disposition of the litigation as a whole to be warranted.” Id. at *8. In other words, it does not matter if an issue is common if resolving that issue results in no efficiencies because individual trials would still be needed and the evidence on both common and specific issues is largely duplicative. Issue certification has to make the litigation “more manageable,” not less. Id.
The issues plaintiff wanted class treatment on were: general causation; defendant’s knowledge; duty to warn; breach of duty to warn; design defect; and reasonable alternative design. Id. at *6-7. But even she had to concede that addressing these issues would still leave open questions of both liability (proximate cause) and damages for individual trials. Id. at *12-13. Plaintiffs allege hair loss—a common condition with numerous alternative causes. Therefore, proximate cause “require[s] an analysis of each unique person, including their medical history, allergies, and prior diagnoses. Id. at *14. With those complex and particularized questions remaining, “the efficiency benefits of an issue class are removed.” Id. at *15. Nor could plaintiff demonstrate judicial economy in this case because “the issue of specific causation is inextricably entangled” with the issue of the general causation.” Id. at *19. In sum, plaintiff failed to prove that her proposed issue classes would materially advance the litigation.
Although that was enough to defeat class certification, the court went on to explain that plaintiff also failed to demonstrate that her issue classes were a “superior” method of adjudicating the case. Particularly, the court found the “likely difficulties in managing” the issue classes weighed against certification. The proposed class included at least 700 plaintiffs from 49 states and plaintiff conceded that each class member would be governed by the product liability law of the state where the injury occurred. Because product liability law is not ubiquitous, the differences in state law guaranteed that “certain of plaintiff’s Proposed Issues could not be decided in one fell swoop.” Id. at *22-23. On design defect alone some states use the risk-utility test, some use consumer expectations, some take a hybrid approach, and others use an unreasonable danger-type standard. Plaintiff offered no “trial plan,” proposed jury instructions, or verdict forms to explain how these state law variations could be handled with a single jury. Id. at *24-26.
Finally, product liability plaintiffs have an interest in controlling their own cases. Class actions are “most compelling” when the costs of pursuing an individual action exceeds the expected recovery. Id. at *26. That is not the case where plaintiffs individually allege damages greater than $75,000 and have retained counsel on a contingency basis. Moreover, several class members already filed individual actions, a few of which were pretty far along. Certifying the class requested by this plaintiff would raise issues relating to opt-outs and enjoining the other cases that cut against judicial economy.
A class action requires common issues, but also common sense. The common issues have to predominate and handling them collectively has to move the litigation forward, not bog it down. In products liability cases, individual issues aren’t just side dishes—they’re the main course. So, you can’t use a one-size-fits-all solution.