[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________

No. 19-13242 ________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cv-22482-RNS

TIMOTHY CHERRY, JILL GARRETT, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross Appellees,

versus DOMETIC CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee-Cross Appellant.

________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida _______________________

(February 2, 2021) Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, JORDAN and MARCUS, Circuit Judges. WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge:

The main issue on appeal is whether putative class representatives must prove the existence of an administratively feasible method to identify absent class USCA11 Case: 19-13242 Date Filed: 02/02/2021 Page: 2 of 15

members as a precondition for certification of a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Owners of allegedly defective refrigerators manufactured by Dometic Corporation, as putative class representatives, moved to certify a class of similarly situated owners, but the district court denied certification based on their failure to prove administrative feasibility. The district court then dismissed the action because, in its view, the denial of class certification divested it of subject- matter jurisdiction. The district court erred. Because jurisdiction does not turn on the denial of class certification and Rule 23 provides no basis to require administrative feasibility, we vacate the order denying class certification and dismissing this action and remand for further proceedings.

I. BACKGROUND

Dometic Corporation manufactures and sells gas-absorption refrigerators that are used in recreational vehicles. Unlike regular refrigerators, Dometic refrigerators are designed to remain operable even when disconnected from electricity. They rely on a chemical solution that can be dangerous if it leaks.

Some Dometic refrigerators have a defect that exacerbates the risk of leakage and creates a risk of fire. In 2006 and 2008, Dometic initiated limited recalls to address this defect. It estimated that the defect affected one hundredth of one percent of the refrigerators it recalled.

2 USCA11 Case: 19-13242 Date Filed: 02/02/2021 Page: 3 of 15

The putative class representatives—18 owners of Dometic refrigerators— argue that the defect is far more widespread. In their view, almost every refrigerator that Dometic sold between 1997 and 2016 has a design defect that corrodes the refrigerator’s boiler tubes. They allege that this defect has caused thousands of fires or leaks and that it gradually ruins the functionality of the refrigerators. They also allege that Dometic knew of but concealed these facts.

Based on these allegations, the putative class representatives sued Dometic for violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and various state laws. They moved for class certification under Rule 23(b)(3). They proposed a class consisting of all persons who purchased in selected states certain models of Dometic refrigerators that were built since 1997.

The main issue at the class-certification stage was whether the proposed class satisfied the ascertainability requirement of Rule 23. The putative class representatives framed ascertainability as an issue of class definition and argued that “[t]he proposed class is ascertainable because the class def