JAMES S. GWIN, District Judge.
Plaintiffs Kenneth Chapman, Jessica Vennel, and Jason Jackson bought pressure cookers ("Cookers") from Defendant Tristar.
Plaintiffs originally made personal injury claims, saying that they suffered injuries when Plaintiffs opened their Cookers and contents erupted onto them and their property.
On April 24, 2017, this Court granted class certification on this economic damages theory.
When the parties filed their final pretrial order, Named Plaintiffs Chapman, Vennel, and Jackson reasserted their personal injury claims.
The Court agrees with Defendant Tristar.
Tristar opposed class certification. In part, Tristar argued that the variety of personal injury damages made class certification inappropriate. Apparently in response, Plaintiff said class certification became appropriate because Plaintiffs sought only economic damages that did not significantly vary among plaintiffs.
When opposing class certification, Tristar said that the Plaintiffs' interests were antagonistic to the proposed class members' interests.
In response, the Court observed that Sixth Circuit district courts "have previously permitted individuals with personal injury claims to opt out of the class action or to define the class in such a way that includes those potential plaintiffs."
The Parties followed our directions. In the notice shipped to potential Class members, the Parties instructed, "If you or anyone you know has suffered personal injuries as a result of a Pressure Cooker and wish to pursue an individual claim for those personal injuries and/or for a property damage claim, then that person(s) should opt out of this litigation . . . ."
Now Named Plaintiffs Chapman, Vennel, and Jackson seek a benefit the Court made unavailable to other class members—to be part of the instant lawsuit and to maintain their personal injury claims. This is improper. Named Plaintiffs cannot use this lawsuit to pursue personal injury and economic damages when their fellow Class members may only seek economic damages.
The Court dismisses the Named Plaintiffs' personal injury claims without prejudice. Should the Named Plaintiffs bring a separate personal injury lawsuit down the road, there may be questions of res judicata or claim preclusion. The Court does not consider those questions today.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court
IT IS SO ORDERED.