In Montera v. Premier Nutrition Corp., — F.4th —, 2024 WL 3659589 (9th Cir. Aug. 6, 2024), the Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded a district court’s statutory damages award, holding that an aggregate award of statutory damages is not subject to the Supreme Court’s State Farm due process standard for punitive damages, but should instead be assessed in light of the proportionality and reasonableness of the aggregate award considering the legal violation committed. Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Gives Plaintiffs Second Chance at $91 Million in Statutory Damages
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
Seventh Circuit Declines to Deepen Circuit Split on Incentive Awards
In Scott v. Dart, 99 F.4th 1076 (7th Cir. 2024), the Seventh Circuit held that incentive awards are sufficient to confer standing on named plaintiffs in appeals of class certification orders. In doing so, it declined to follow a recent Eleventh Circuit decision holding that incentive awards are unlawful.Continue Reading Seventh Circuit Declines to Deepen Circuit Split on Incentive Awards
In Rare Move, Fourth Circuit Exercises Pendent Jurisdiction Over Non-Final Order
In Elegant Massage, LLC v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 95 F.4th 181 (4th Cir. 2024), the Fourth Circuit took the unusual step of exercising interlocutory appellate jurisdiction over an order denying a motion to dismiss. Having granted a petition for interlocutory review under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) of a class certification order, the court concluded that its review of the class order required it also to review the district court’s earlier denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss. Continue Reading In Rare Move, Fourth Circuit Exercises Pendent Jurisdiction Over Non-Final Order
Michigan Supreme Court Refuses to Enforce “Usury Savings Clause”
In a decision that will likely have ramifications for lenders and borrowers in the state, the Michigan Supreme Court recently issued a decision clarifying that lenders cannot rely on a “usury savings clause” to circumvent Michigan’s usury statute. But it also held that a lender’s effort to enforce a usurious loan, by itself, is not enough to trigger criminal liability.Continue Reading Michigan Supreme Court Refuses to Enforce “Usury Savings Clause”
Lawsuit Accuses Bank of America of Misleading Companies About PPP Loans
A group of small businesses recently sued Bank of America in the Central District of California, alleging that it misled them about the terms of Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans. This marks yet another putative class action accusing lenders of misconduct in connection with the PPP.Continue Reading Lawsuit Accuses Bank of America of Misleading Companies About PPP Loans
First Circuit Holds Alleged Overpayment Enough for Article III Standing
The First Circuit recently revived consumer deception claims challenging the safety and testing of a car booster seat manufactured by Evenflo, in a case that potentially makes it easier for class-action plaintiffs to satisfy Article III’s standing requirements in the First Circuit when they only allege an economic injury. Continue Reading First Circuit Holds Alleged Overpayment Enough for Article III Standing
Court Rejects Plaintiffs’ Post-Trial Bid For $140 Million In Statutory Damages Under New York False Advertising Laws
After prevailing in a class action trial regarding allegedly false advertising, plaintiffs sought $91 million in statutory damages under New York’s General Business Law (GBL), plus $49 million in prejudgment interest. In an opinion that will likely serve as an important precedent for future GBL cases – and could influence how aggressively plaintiffs pursue them – a court in the Northern District of California rejected plaintiffs’ request, and instead awarded $8.3 million in statutory damages, plus interest. Montera v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 2022 WL 3348573 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2022). The plaintiffs’ requested award, the court held, was “so severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportioned to the offense and obviously unreasonable.”Continue Reading Court Rejects Plaintiffs’ Post-Trial Bid For $140 Million In Statutory Damages Under New York False Advertising Laws
A Closer Look: Express Federal Preemption for OTC Medications Subject to Monographs
Manufacturers of over-the-counter (OTC) medications often move to dismiss consumer class actions based on federal preemption. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) contains an express preemption clause that forbids states from enforcing laws relating to OTC drugs that are “different from or in addition to, or that [are] otherwise not identical with, a requirement under” the FDCA. 21 U.S.C. § 379r(a). (Section 379r also contains a savings clause that exempts product liability actions from its preemptive scope. See id. § 379r(e).) Similar preemption provisions exist for food and cosmetics. Id. §§ 343-1(a), 379s(a). Although most courts have interpreted the FDCA’s express preemption provisions broadly, a minority have limited their application. As discussed below, the minority view involves distinguishable circumstances and is inconsistent with the FDCA’s statutory text.Continue Reading A Closer Look: Express Federal Preemption for OTC Medications Subject to Monographs
Plaintiffs Seek $140 Million In Statutory Damages After Trial Win
A rare class action trial that resulted in a jury verdict against a defendant may set a precedent for the amount of statutory damages that can be recovered under New York’s General Business Law (GBL) when a class action proceeds to trial. After a jury found that Joint Juice deceptively labeled its beverages and awarded actual damages to the class, the plaintiffs moved for $140 million in statutory damages.Continue Reading Plaintiffs Seek $140 Million In Statutory Damages After Trial Win