The ramifications of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco Cty., 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017), remain unsettled. In Bristol-Myers Squibb, the United States Supreme Court rejected California’s “sliding scale approach” to assertions of specific personal jurisdiction. California’s Supreme Court had addressed a nationwide mass action and held that California could assert specific jurisdiction over the claims of ... Keep Reading »
Food & Beverage Class Action Articles
The latest class action developments and trends in the food and beverage industry, including news, key cases, and strategies.
Third Circuit Ascertainability Requirement Puts the Squeeze on Orange Juice Purchasers
A New Jersey district court denied certification to a putative class of Tropicana orange juice purchasers from "Members Only" or "Loyalty Card" stores in California, New York, New Jersey, and Wisconsin. Plaintiffs alleged various common law and statutory consumer protection causes of action based on Tropicana's alleged false marketing of its orange juice as "all natural." The court found that plaintiffs satisfied the four certification requirements of Rule 23(a) but ... Keep Reading »
Ninth Circuit Says Plaintiff Might Get Fooled Again
Last week the Ninth Circuit reopened a key avenue in consumer false advertising class actions – injunctive relief. A growing number of trial courts had dismissed those claims, reasoning that plaintiffs who know of the alleged fraud aren’t at risk of being fooled again. No more. In Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, the Ninth Circuit held that a plaintiff who alleges that so-called “flushable wipes” are not actually flushable has standing to sue the seller of these ... Keep Reading »
Food for Thought: Liability-Only Class Certification Denied for Claims That “No Sugar Added” Juice Labels Misled Consumers Into Thinking the Juice Had Fewer Calories
Plaintiff’s putative class action alleged that defendant Mott’s violated FDA regulations and California’s Sherman Law and Unfair Competition Law when it labeled and sold its 100 percent apple juice with the label “No Sugar Added,” which plaintiff claimed misled consumers into thinking the juice had fewer calories than its competitors. For some reason, Plaintiff sought issue-specific class certification on liability only pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4). The district court ... Keep Reading »
The Continuing Saga of Standing in Data Breach Class Actions: The 8th Circuit Weighs In
We previously reported on the developing circuit split over Article III standing in data breach class action cases. In August, the D.C. Circuit Court joined the Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits in finding that the injury-in-fact requirement for Article III standing can be satisfied by fear of identity theft following a data breach. Now, the Eighth Circuit has weighed in with two new decisions that evidence a narrower, more nuanced approach to the standing issue. In ... Keep Reading »
Ninth Circuit Tolls Rule 23(f) Deadline, Revives Aphrodisiac Class Action
Within 10 days after the district court decertified a Rule 23(b)(3) aphrodisiac dietary supplement class for failure to show a class wide method for calculating damages, plaintiff orally advised the court of his intention to seek reconsideration. The district court then set a 10-day deadline for filing a motion for reconsideration — in other words, 20 days after the decertification order. Plaintiff complied with the court’s schedule. The district court denied the motion ... Keep Reading »
Consolidated Cholesterol Drug Cases Lack Critical Mass for CAFA Jurisdiction
The Central District of California district court recently weighed in on the limits of mass action jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). The matter began as various individual state court actions alleging that a cholesterol medication caused women taking the drug to suffer from Type II diabetes; after the state court granted a request for “coordination” of the cases, defendant pharmaceutical company removed the cases to federal court based on CAFA’s ... Keep Reading »
Nationwide Class Claims Under A Single State’s Consumer Protection Laws?
A flurry of recent consumer protection cases in California federal courts led to mixed results for defendants attempting to dismiss nationwide class claims based on the state’s choice of law rules. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California recently addressed the issue in Azar v. Gateway Genomics, LLC, in which plaintiff brought a putative nationwide class action alleging, inter alia, violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False ... Keep Reading »
Pay Attention: A Class Certification Decision You Might Want To Remember
On March 16, 2017, the Southern District of California certified a class action against the manufacturer of gingko biloba and Costco Wholesale Corporation, the seller. Plaintiff alleged, on behalf of a putative class of California purchasers of TruNature Gingko, that the product does not provide any mental clarity, memory, or mental alertness benefits. Plaintiff’s claims were brought under California's unfair competition law and California's Consumer Legal Remedies ... Keep Reading »
Noodle This! The Yin and Yang of Two Courts, Two Antitrust Cases, Two Class Certification Motions, Two Daubert Challenges, Two Opposite Results, One Day Apart
Noodle this: Two significant orders on class certification in antitrust matters issued last week. Both were heavily influenced by the threshold determination of Daubert challenges to the plaintiffs’ expert evidence. In one court, the Daubert motions were denied and the classes were certified. In the other court, the expert evidence was excluded and the class certification requests were denied (and, indeed, two related classes were decertified). On January 19, 2017, ... Keep Reading »
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next Page »