Rojas v. Bosch Solar Energy Corporation

Background

Steve and Andrea Rojas alleged that Bosch’s NA30119 solar panels were defective because overheating at solder joints created a fire hazard, delamination caused the protective back sheets to peel and crack, and power output declined more than promised. They asserted three warranty claims and an unjust-enrichment claim. The plaintiffs sought certification of a nationwide warranty class and a California unjust-enrichment subclass, or alternatively a five-state class.

The court had previously dismissed claims on behalf of residents of Arizona, Hawaii, Missouri, and North Carolina, finding that the California plaintiffs lacked standing to assert those claims. It also determined that the warranty claims were governed by Michigan law and that the unjust-enrichment claim was governed by California law.

Amendment of the Class Definition

The court denied the plaintiffs’ request to amend the class definition to add a nationwide class or, alternatively, the previously rejected five-state class. It concluded that this was a major change rather than a minor modification appropriate at the class-certification stage. The denial was without prejudice to a properly noticed motion for leave to amend the class definition.

The court therefore considered certification only for a California class. It also noted that, in a separate order, it had sustained Bosch’s objections to certain new reply evidence and had not considered the challenged evidence.

Rule 23 Requirements

The court found that the proposed California class satisfied numerosity, meaning that the class was large enough that joining every member in separate lawsuits would be impractical. Evidence showed that 4,086 NA30119 panels had been sold to distributors and installers in California, and the court found it reasonable to conclude that more than 40 end users existed.

The court found commonality, meaning that the class members shared significant legal or factual questions. For the product-warranty claims, those questions included whether the panels had the solder and delamination defects and whether Bosch had to pay for or replace the panels. The court also found commonality for the performance-warranty claims and the unjust-enrichment claim, even though some individual questions would remain.

The court found typicality because the Rojases’ claims arose from the same alleged defects and warranties as the proposed class members’ claims. It rejected Bosch’s arguments that the Rojases’ ground-mounted panels, acquisition of title during the litigation, refusal of Bosch’s replacement offer, or alleged delay in giving notice created defenses unique to them. The court also found adequacy, concluding that the Rojases and their counsel had no apparent conflicts and had shown the ability and willingness to represent the class.

Predominance and Superiority

For Rule 23(b)(3), the court found that common questions predominated over individual questions for the warranty claims based on the Product Warranty. That warranty covered defects in materials and workmanship. The court concluded that common questions did not predominate for the Performance Warranty, which concerned the amount of power produced over time, because each class member would need to show individually whether power loss occurred and whether a panel defect caused it.

The court found that common questions also predominated for the unjust-enrichment claim. The plaintiffs’ theory was that Bosch received and unfairly retained money paid through the solar-panel distribution chain because of the defective panels. Although tracing each class member’s payment could require individual inquiry, Bosch did not oppose certification on that basis.

For damages on the Product Warranty claims, the court accepted replacement cost as a proposed classwide method of measuring damages. The plaintiffs’ expert estimated the replacement cost at $1,079 per panel, including inspection, labor, and materials. The court found that this method could measure damages without excessive difficulty and that the claimed damages would stem from the alleged warranty breach.

The court also found that a class action was superior to individual lawsuits. It reasoned that individual litigation would be costly compared with each member’s likely recovery, that a single forum would be efficient, and that the class appeared manageable. The court rejected Bosch’s argument that its voluntary recall was a superior alternative because relatively few panels had been replaced years after the recall began.

Order

The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. It granted certification for a California class consisting of persons or entities in California who were consumers, final customers, end users, subsequent buyers, or subsequent owners of Bosch NA30119 panels, on claims for breach of the Product Warranty and unjust enrichment.

The court denied certification for Claims 1, 2, and 3 to the extent those claims were based on the Performance Warranty. It appointed Steve R. Rojas and Andrea N. Rojas as class representatives and appointed Birka-White Law Offices, Farella Braun + Martel LLP, and Levin Sedran and Berman as class counsel. The plaintiffs were ordered to submit a proposed class-notice plan within 30 days of the order.