Last September, we reported on a 2-1 Ninth Circuit decision holding that even if an arbitration clause appears to be unenforceable under the prospective waiver doctrine, a delegation provision requiring the arbitrator to decide that issue in the first instance is still enforceable. Brice v. Haynes Invs., LLC, 13 F.4th 823 (9th Cir. 2021). This decision reversed the district court’s order denying defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Because the district court action was not stayed pending the appeal, it proceeded through class certification and pretrial motions. The Ninth Circuit now has vacated the panel decision and decided to rehear the case en banc.
Focusing on class actions, Alex Setzepfandt regularly advises clients in the life sciences and financial services industries in complex litigations involving product defects and mass torts. He also has experience representing both plaintiffs and defendants in commercial actions, including breach of contract, insurance recovery, and business tort actions.
Alex handles all phases of litigation, including initial pleadings, discovery, trial, and appeals. His experience includes drafting complaints and dispositive motions, arguing discovery motions, taking and defending depositions, negotiating discovery and pre-trial stipulations, and assisting with a broad range of tasks at trial.
Through his active pro bono practice, Alex has honed his oral advocacy skills. His experience includes:
- Directly examining his client and giving the closing argument at a jury trial in SDNY;
- Arguing motions in limine and other pre-trial matters;
- Presenting an oral argument in the 11th Circuit; and
- Acting as lead counsel at multiple mediations in federal courts.
A consumer purchases a product and later finds out that the product was contaminated with a toxic substance. Was the consumer injured? Without knowing more, the answer is “no”—at least for the purposes of establishing standing in the Third Circuit. In Koronthaly v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 374 F. App’x 257, 259 (3d Cir. 2010), the court held that mere exposure to lead in lipstick was not sufficient to support standing. Years later, in In re Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Prods. Mktg., Sales Practice & Liability Litigation, 903 F.3d 278, 289, 290 n. 15 (3d Cir. 2018), the court held that mere exposure to a carcinogen in talcum powder is likewise not enough to establish standing.
Following this trend, District Judge Chesler in the District of New Jersey recently dismissed a case where plaintiffs alleged they purchased baby food contaminated with heavy metals. See Kimca v. Sprout Foods, Inc. d/b/a Sprout Organic Foods, 2022 WL 1213488 (D.N.J. Apr. 25, 2022). …
The Seventh Circuit recently gave defendants another arrow in their quiver to use when arguing that plaintiffs lack Article III standing to assert claims for violations of federal laws, even when the plaintiff demonstrated that she suffered emotional distress as a result of those violations.…