In a decision that boosts defendants’ chances of defeating mislabeling claims at the pleading stage, a Ninth Circuit panel held that that the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) expressly preempted plaintiffs’ claims. See Pardini et al. v. Unilever United States, Inc., No. 21-16806 (9th Cir. Apr. 18, 2023).
Losing Less than a Penny Suffices for Standing for Class Certification, the Ninth Circuit Rules
The Ninth Circuit recently held that a class could be certified with class members who lost less than a penny of interest. But it also held that where some class members may have lost nothing at all, the district court must take a hard look at whether the predominance requirement has been met.
Ninth Circuit Reverses Course on Arbitration
The Ninth Circuit recently held in Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts a California law that criminalizes employer conduct that requires employees to consent to arbitrate claims arising under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. This ruling came after the same panel previously held that the law, Assembly Bill 51, was not preempted because it focused on “pre-agreement” behavior and not the arbitration agreement itself. In 2021, the panel sua sponte decided to rehear the case, apparently after Judge Fletcher (who was in the majority in both decisions) changed his mind on the law’s validity. In doing so, the panel eliminated a circuit split it had previously created between itself and the First and Fourth Circuits.
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Reverses Course on Arbitration
California Urges Ninth Circuit to Clamp Down on Dismissals for Insufficient Pleading Under “Reasonable Consumer” Test
The California Attorney General has joined the fray in Souter v. Edgewell, an otherwise little‑watched putative class action pending in the Ninth Circuit over allegedly misleading label claims about the efficacy and safety of the defendant’s hand wipes. The Attorney General is urging the Ninth Circuit to make it far more difficult for defendants
SCOTUS Dismisses Case on the Scope of the Attorney-Client Privilege
In a one-line order issued last week, the Supreme Court dismissed In Re Grand Jury, No. 21-1397, one of the most significant cases about the attorney-client privilege in decades. The dismissal came just two weeks after oral argument. The Court explained that the writ of certiorari had been “improvidently granted,” meaning the Court should
Class Action Suit Brought Under CIPA Section 637.7 for Alleged Location-Based Tracking of Vehicles Is Dismissed
A U.S. District Court Judge in California dismissed a putative class action asserting claims under section 637.7 of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) in a case that could have useful implications for automotive and other device manufacturers whose products have the ability to track location. Plaintiff claimed that a third-party company, Otonomo Inc., partnered with automobile manufacturers to use the telematics control units (TCUs) installed in their vehicles to track a driver’s location via GPS without the driver’s knowledge. The Court rejected the claim, holding that because the TCU devices were built-in, rather than devices added to a vehicle, they were not “attached” to the car and thus did not fall within the statute’s definition of “electronic tracking device.”
Ninth Circuit Holds COPPA Does Not Preempt Consistent State Law Claims Premised on COPPA Violations
The Ninth Circuit recently held that the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, which gives the Federal Trade Commission authority to regulate the online collection of personal information from children under the age of 13, does not preempt consistent state law, potentially increasing the risk of class action litigation based on alleged COPPA violations. See Jones
A Closer Look: Equitable Jurisdiction in the Ninth Circuit After Sonner
Under the Ninth Circuit’s 2020 decision in Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 971 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2020), plaintiffs cannot recover equitable relief in federal court if they have an adequate legal remedy. More than two years later, district courts remain divided on how to apply Sonner at the pleading stage, with some postponing the analysis to later stages and others routinely dismissing equitable claims. In courts that take the stricter view, Sonner can be a useful tool for narrowing the claims class action defendants must litigate in a federal case, particularly in California, where common consumer protection claims are largely limited to equitable remedies. That said, a pair of recent Ninth Circuit decisions highlights that defendants should carefully consider the risk that a plaintiff will refile dismissed equitable claims in state court.
Continue Reading A Closer Look: Equitable Jurisdiction in the Ninth Circuit After Sonner
SCOTUS Set to Resolve Circuit Split over Stays Pending Arbitration Appeal
The Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in a case to resolve a circuit split that has serious implications for companies who are unsuccessful in their efforts to enforce arbitration provisions in federal district courts.
In Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski, No. 22-105, the defendant moved to compel arbitration in two putative class actions. The motions to compel were denied, and the defendant sought stays while it appealed the denials—which the Federal Arbitration Act gives defendants an automatic right to do. See 9 U.S.C. § 16. Both motions to stay were denied, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed both decisions.
Continue Reading SCOTUS Set to Resolve Circuit Split over Stays Pending Arbitration Appeal
A Closer Look: Does Purchasing a Defective or Contaminated Product Always Cause an Article III Injury?
If a tree falls in the forest but no one is around to hear it, did it make a sound? Philosophers disagree. If a product contains a contaminant but no one gets sick, did it cause an injury? Judges disagree.
In the 2000s, enterprising plaintiffs’ attorneys attempted to push the boundaries of existing tort law by arguing that plaintiffs are entitled to damages for defects even when they cause no physical injury. These so-called “no-injury” theories of liability were largely rejected by courts. E.g., Rivera v. Wyeth-Ayerst Lab’ys, 283 F.3d 315, 320–21 (5th Cir. 2002) (dismissing “no-injury products liability law suit”); Johnson v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 2014 WL 4494284, at *7 (W.D. Wis. Sept. 12, 2014) (recognizing that in the “consumer product context, courts routinely find lack of standing where—while a product may have been defective in the hands of others—the individual plaintiffs did not suffer the defect and, therefore, suffered no injury”).
While these cases closed the door on “no-injury” product liability claims, they left open the possibility of other “no-injury” claims, such as claims that a manufacturing defect breached a warranty or constituted fraud. E.g., Cole v. Gen. Motors Corp., 484 F.3d 717, 723 (5th Cir. 2007) (“Notably in this case, plaintiffs may bring claims under a contract theory based on the express and implied warranties they allege.”).
Whether and when “no-injury” claims are viable is a hotly debated question. As more fully discussed below, courts disagree on whether a plaintiff who has purchased a contaminated or defective product—but who has successfully used the product for its intended purpose while suffering no physical injury—can maintain a claim.