The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denied class certification in a product mislabeling case after holding that named plaintiff lacked credibility on a material issue and, therefore, could not be an adequate class representative under Rule 23(a)(4). Plaintiff’s putative class action complaint alleged that manufacturer Boiron violated, among other laws, the California Unfair Competition Law and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act by misrepresenting ... Keep Reading »
Archives for April 2014
Knowles Gives Employer Second Chance To Seek And Win Removal
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that neither a damages waiver nor the passage of more than 30 days after receipt of a complaint prevented an employer’s removal under CAFA. A putative class of California store managers suing for lost overtime successfully prevented the defendant-employer’s first attempt at removal by expressly disclaiming any right to recover damages over $4,999,999.99, thereby ensuring that CAFA’s $5 million amount in controversy requirement ... Keep Reading »
Putative Class Members Cannot Establish Damages in Dietary Supplement Case
In Moore v. GNC Holdings, Inc., Southern District of Florida Judge Dimetrouleas ordered partial summary judgment in favor of GNC and against the class as to plaintiffs’ damages claims under Florida’s Deceptive & Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA). While this order does not dispense with all of the claims, it does eliminate any potential monetary award to the class, and limits plaintiffs to injunctive relief. More specifically, despite the court’s finding that ... Keep Reading »
Putative Nationwide Class Of Car Dealers Turns Out To Be A Lemon – Individualized Issues Preclude Certification
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia denied plaintiffs’ motion for nationwide class certification because the proposed class did not meet Rule 23’s commonality or predominance requirements. The putative class plaintiffs had entered into agreements granting them rights to distribute the defendant’s cars in the United States. The plaintiffs had paid the defendant’s “application” fees and, in some instances, prepared dealerships to receive new ... Keep Reading »