In the continuing saga concerning mold in clothes washers, the Sixth Circuit reaffirmed its decision upholding the certification of a class on remand from the Supreme Court. In re Whirlpool Corp. Front-Loading Washer Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 10-4188 (6th Cir. July 18, 2013). Plaintiffs alleged defects in front loading washing machines allowed mold to grow in the machines. The district court certified a liability class, reserving damages issues for individual determination. In a prior opinion, the Third Circuit affirmed. The United States Supreme Court issued a “GVR” order – it granted certiorari, vacated the decision, and remanded in light of Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013). Addressing the extent to which the district court may consider the merits on class certification, the Sixth Circuit stated Rule 23 does not “turn the class certification proceedings into a dress rehearsal” for the trial. Rather, the district court may only consider those factual matters relevant to deciding if Rule 23 had been satisfied. The Sixth Circuit concluded that commonality was satisfied with evidence that the mold accumulation was due to a common design defect. As such, common questions, with common answers, will drive the lawsuit. (The Seventh Circuit had reached a similar conclusion in Butler v. Sears Roebuck and Co., 702 F.3d 359 (7th Cir. 2012). The Supreme Court also issued a GVR order in Butler.) Addressing the GVR order, the court concluded that Comcast did not alter its analysis. In Comcast, the district court certified a liability and damages class. The Supreme Court reversed because the plaintiffs were unable to demonstrate a classwide model of damages. Here, in contrast, the district court reserved questions concerning damages for individual determination. Where liability and damages have been bifurcated, the court held Comcast had limited application: “to the extent that Comcast Corp. reaffirms the settled rule that liability issues relating to injury must be susceptible of proof on a classwide basis to meet the predominance standard, our opinion thoroughly demonstrates why that requirement is met in this case.” Once the district court resolves the liability questions, the court will either enter judgment for defendants or proceed to address damages in line with Comcast and other cases.