Yeah, the observation by the judge doesn't look like his head is in a good place. On the other hand, it's not a ruling.
Say you bought a German Shepherd dog. Say it was very different from the quality of dog you thought you were buying.
It's still a dog, sure, but then the next question becomes important:
Did the seller make material misrepresentations to the buyer?
Did the seller, for instance, show the buyer a falsified pedigree that asserts both parents are champions, when the bitch is from a backyard breeder and the dog who fathered the litter looks like a German Shepherd dog but has no pedigree at all?
Did the seller ensure the puppy was healthy and free of hip defects when it's a sick little sucker?
Did the seller sell *a lot* of puppies who had similarly falsified records? For example, was the seller a pet store chain that sold a lot of sick and/or pedigree-falsified dogs to hundreds of people?
It may still be a dog, but once you get to the next question on the list, it still qualifies as a class.
So, "It's still a Ford," may just mean, "You can't show me you paid for a Ford and got a Schwinn--it's another Ford. So now you're gonna have to show me you've got enough evidence of a pattern of material misrepresentations about this Ford that meet the right criteria for me to certify this as a class."
Don't read too much into the comment. It doesn't look good, but still.
Julie