On January 24, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis to address a long-unsettled issue central to class-action litigation: “Whether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when some members of the proposed class lack any Article III injury.”Continue Reading Supreme Court to Decide If Presence of Uninjured Class Members Defeats Class Certification
Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Consumer Class Action Challenging Nutrition Shakes and Drinks As Misleading
In Bates v. Abbott Laboratories, the Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of a consumer class action challenging the labeling of Ensure shakes and drinks as materially misleading. 2025 WL 65668, at *1–2 (2d Cir. Jan. 10, 2025). Continue Reading Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Consumer Class Action Challenging Nutrition Shakes and Drinks As Misleading
Unique Injuries No Bar to Class Certification Pursuing Economic Damages
Despite a lead plaintiff with unique injuries, the Northern District of Indiana recently certified a class seeking economic damages under Indiana’s consumer protection statute in a case challenging contaminated hand sanitizer manufactured by 4e Brands North America, LLC. Callantine v. 4e Brands North America, LLC, 2024 WL 4903361 (N.D. Ind. Nov. 27, 2024).
In June 2020, Defendant 4e voluntarily recalled all of its hand sanitizer lots due to the presence of methanol. The plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit two months later, alleging that she had suffered both economic and personal injuries, and that she was entitled to statutory damages. The individual class members’ damages, however, would be “largely limited to statutory damages.” Continue Reading Unique Injuries No Bar to Class Certification Pursuing Economic Damages
Ninth Circuit Addresses National Bank Act Preemption after Supreme Court Decision
In the first court decision addressing National Bank Act preemption since the Supreme Court clarified the standard in Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A., 144 S. Ct. 1290 (2024), the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed that the Act does not preempt a California state law requiring banks to pay interest on funds held in their customers’ escrow accounts. See Kivett v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, 2024 WL 3901188 (9th Cir. Aug. 22, 2024).Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Addresses National Bank Act Preemption after Supreme Court Decision
California Supreme Court Decision Highlights Potential Class Certification Defenses for Manufacturers of Prescription Drugs & Medical Devices
A recent decision by the California Supreme Court underscores why courts should be hesitant to grant class certification in cases in which the learned intermediary doctrine applies. Continue Reading California Supreme Court Decision Highlights Potential Class Certification Defenses for Manufacturers of Prescription Drugs & Medical Devices
Split Ninth Circuit Panel Permits Private Plaintiffs to Use California Food Labeling Law to Enforce Federal Standards
In Davidson v. Sprout Foods, Inc., — F.4th —, 2024 WL 3213277 (9th Cir. June 28, 2024), a divided Ninth Circuit panel held that private plaintiffs can bring claims for violations of California’s food labeling law that mirror federal law requirements, even though private plaintiffs lack a cause of action to enforce federal law directly. In reaching this conclusion, the court determined that the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) does not preempt private enforcement of California’s Sherman Law, even though the Sherman Law incorporates the FDCA by reference and private plaintiffs typically cannot sue to enforce the FDCA.Continue Reading Split Ninth Circuit Panel Permits Private Plaintiffs to Use California Food Labeling Law to Enforce Federal Standards
Class-action claims seeking economic damages for purchase of withdrawn medicine defeated on Article III standing grounds.
A recent New Jersey federal court decision dealt a major blow to class action litigation that seek economic damages associated with the sale of products withdrawn from the market.
In Gibriano v. Eisai, Inc., et al., 2024 WL 1831546 (D.N.J. Mar. 31, 2024), the plaintiff sought to represent a nationwide class of consumers who purchased a weight-loss medication that was recently voluntarily withdrawn from the market based on FDA’s concerns about potential cancer risk. The plaintiff did not claim that she had suffered personal injuries. Rather, she sought money damages, alleging that she over-paid because the medication “did not meaningfully impact her weight” and because the price she paid was “based on the understanding that it was safe.” She further alleged that, because of the medication’s potential risks, “no reasonable physician would have prescribed [it] and no reasonable consumer would choose to purchase [it].” In support of her allegations, the plaintiff attached to her complaint a consumer survey suggesting that knowledge of cancer risk would reduce the amount consumers would pay for a medication. Continue Reading Class-action claims seeking economic damages for purchase of withdrawn medicine defeated on Article III standing grounds.
New Federal Rule of Civil Procedure for MDLs Approved by Advisory Committee
Earlier this month, the Judicial Conference’s Advisory Committee on Civil Rules unanimously approved a proposed new rule to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to address case management of multidistrict litigation (“MDL”). The rule is the first addition to the Federal Rules focused on MDLs, and it reflects an attempt to suggest a nationwide approach to MDL case management that tracks approaches to case management that MDL judges have often followed in practice while leaving MDL judges discretion to depart from the suggested procedures depending on the needs of a particular case.Continue Reading New Federal Rule of Civil Procedure for MDLs Approved by Advisory Committee
A Closer Look: Developing Trends in ESG Litigation
Environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) initiatives have become increasingly important in today’s business setting. Increased awareness and heightened scrutiny of ESG-related issues, combined with third-party litigation funding, has led to a surge in ESG-related litigation and enforcement actions as consumers, regulators, and investors seek to hold companies accountable for claims about their environmental and social impact.
This post explores the emerging trends shaping the landscape of ESG litigation, which are increasingly centralized in courts in the District of Columbia. Such claims are often brought by nonprofit organizations seeking to take advantage of local consumer protection laws which they claim allow them standing to sue.Continue Reading A Closer Look: Developing Trends in ESG Litigation
“Greenwashing” Claims Certified For Class Treatment
This blog recently covered a decision from the Northern District of California denying a defendant’s motion for summary judgment on a plaintiff’s “greenwashing” claims, which asserted that defendant’s “non-toxic” and “Earth-friendly” labels were false and misleading. See Bush v. Rust-Oleum Corp., 2024 WL 308263 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2024). Now, the same court has granted class certification on those claims, demonstrating that not only can these claims be difficult to defeat before trial, but it can also be difficult to prevent certification on those claims as well.Continue Reading “Greenwashing” Claims Certified For Class Treatment