EAST ST. LOUIS – U.S. District Judge David Dugan dismissed about 100 residents of other states from a potential class action over glass fibers escaping from mattresses on June 10.
He found no connection between their claims and Zinus’s activities in Illinois.
Fifteen Illinois plaintiffs remain, and Dugan gave them 21 days to solve problems he spotted in their class allegations and their class definition.
James Radcliffe, Lloyd M. Cueto and Christopher Cueto of Belleville sued Zinus in 2020, on behalf of Amanda Chandler and Robert Durham of Collinsville.
They amended the complaint to add claims of Allen Branch, Brandi Kretzler, and Wesley Kretzer of Centralia.
In April 2021, they amended the complaint to add plaintiffs from 31 other states seeking relief under consumer laws of their states.
The roster ran 86 lines and included spouses and minors on many lines.
Zinus moved to dismiss the complaint and strike its class allegations.
Dugan set a hearing but the parties postponed it pending mediation.
After mediation failed, Dugan vacated an October trial date and heard argument.
He delivered a decision mixing good news and bad news for both sides.
He found a tag on some Zinus mattresses instructed users to wash the cover and dry it on a gentle cycle and other mattresses warned, “Do not remove cover.”
He found plaintiffs adequately alleged the mattresses weren’t merchantable.
He found plaintiffs adequately alleged negligence and adequately alleged strict liability for failure to warn and for design defect.
He disposed of claims under consumer laws of other states but allowed a claim of concealment or omission of facts under Illinois consumer law.
He denied the motion to strike class allegations, with reservations.
“Products liability suits are rarely sustainable as class actions because they raised individualized fact intensive issues involving causation, affirmative defenses, injuries, and damages,” he wrote.
He found plaintiffs varied in describing covers and how easy they were to remove.
He found some claimed the mattress included a zipper that invited users to remove the cover.
He found some removed pull tabs and stitched over slider bodies.
He found some described the zipper as easily accessible.
He found many plaintiffs removed the cover and removed it regularly by inserting a finger and gently pulling.
“One plaintiff removed the cover and never put it back on, opting instead to use a couple sheets to cover the mattress,” he wrote.
He found two dogs ripped holes in covers.
“These allegations suggest that the affirmative defenses available to Zinus may vary widely from one individual plaintiff to another, posing a significant roadblock to class wide adjudication of claims and defenses,” he wrote.
He found plaintiffs alleged injuries from irritation of eye, skin, stomach, and respiratory tract to hearing loss and vertigo.
He found they alleged damage to heating, ventilation, washers, dryers, clothes, towels, bedding, couches, carpets, tile, drywall, electronics, wood, and plastic.
He found they alleged remediation costs from thousands to tens of thousands.
“Finally, adding another wrinkle, at least some class members have also received refunds for their mattresses,” he wrote.
He found significant risk that the claims would not prevail or fail in unison as a class certification rule requires.
“Despite the problematic individualized issues presented by plaintiffs’ class allegations, the court finds that Zinus has failed to carry its burden to definitively establish that plaintiffs’ class allegations are facially defective or inherently deficient,” he wrote.
He found breach of warranty appeared more viable than other allegations.
As for class definitions, he again spotted problems but stopped short of striking.
He found they perhaps toed a line between permissible and impermissible.
He found tailoring them would benefit from discovery and development of claims.
Natalie Kussart of Sandberg Phoenix in St. Louis represents Zinus.