JODI TAPPLY, JEANNETTE BUSCHMAN, MICHAEL PARTIPILO, BARBARA LESTER, and VICKI MEYERHOLZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION - Articles

All Content

JODI TAPPLY, JEANNETTE BUSCHMAN, MICHAEL PARTIPILO, BARBARA LESTER, and VICKI MEYERHOLZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Aug 6, 2025

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Jennifer Bennett, GUPTA WESSLER, San Francisco, California, for Appellants.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Aileen M. McGrath, MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP, San Francisco, California, for Appellee.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Jennifer Bennett, GUPTA WESSLER LLP, San Francisco, California, Robert Friedman, GUPTA WESSLER LLP, Washington, D.C., Alan M. Feldman, Edward S. Goldis, Zachary Arbitman, FELDMAN SHEPHERD WOHLGELERNTER TANNER WEINSTOCK & DODIG, LLP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Michael F. Ram, Marie N. Appel, MORGAN & MORGAN, San Francisco, California, David H. Fink, Nathan J. Fink, FINK BRESSACK, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, for Appellants.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Aileen M. McGrath, Joel F. Wacks, MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP, San Francisco, California, Joseph R. Palmore, MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP, Washington, D.C., Alexandra Avvocato, MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP, New York, New York, for Appellee.

Attorneys 5: ON BRIEF: Terri S. Reiskin, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP, Washington, D.C., Christopher Shaun Polston, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP, Atlanta, Georgia, Brian D. Schmalzbach, MCGUIREWOODS LLP, Richmond, Virginia, Philip S. Goldberg, SHOOK HARDY & BACON L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae.

Judge(s): MOORE, COLE, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids

COLE, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs own ovens with front-mounted burner knobs manufactured by Whirlpool Corporation. In their class-action complaint, they allege that their ovens’ stovetop burners are capable of “unintended actuation,” whereby the stovetops ignite inadvertently. After plaintiffs sued Whirlpool, the district court found that plaintiffs had Article III standing to pursue their claims but dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state plausible claims for relief. Plaintiffs now appeal dismissal of their state common law and statutory claims, while Whirlpool argues the district court erred by not dismissing plaintiffs’ amended complaint for lack of Article III standing. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

Attachments: