The Northern District of California recently applied the Ninth Circuit’s ingredients list rule in a putative class action decision. The Court refused to grant Nestlé USA Inc.’s summary judgment motion based on the statute of limitations in a suit involving allegations that Nestlé misleads consumers about the trans-fat content of their Coffee Mate creamer products. The Court held that a triable issue of fact remained because it was not clear when the consumer first learned about the alleged deception.
The Ninth Circuit has confirmed that a lack of summary judgment evidence linking a product to concrete injury may properly halt a would-be class action in its tracks if a defendant preemptively moves for summary judgment before plaintiffs have the chance to move for class certification.
As we explored in an earlier post, the plaintiffs in Browning et al. v. Unilever United States Inc. represented a would-be class alleging that defendant Unilever failed to disclose that its St. Ives facial scrubs caused “micro-tears” of the skin. In early 2019, the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted summary judgment in favor of Unilever. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish the alleged micro-tears constituted a safety hazard, and found that causation was lacking because the plaintiffs presented no evidence that St. Ives — and not some “other products or lifestyle” choices — caused the complained-of skin conditions.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of a consumer fraud class action pursuing restitution under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) because the plaintiff failed to show she lacked an adequate legal remedy. Sonner v. Premier Nutrition, No. 18-15890 (9th Cir. June 18, 2020). In doing so, the Ninth Circuit resolved a split in the California federal courts regarding whether plaintiffs may pursue solely equitable relief under the UCL, Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), or False Advertising Law (FAL) when legal damages under the CLRA are available in the same amount for the same alleged harm. This decision has important implications for consumer class actions in California federal courts.
On June 15, 2020, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) revoked the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) that permitted emergency distribution of chloroquine phosphate (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine sulfate (HCQ) from the Strategic National Stockpile. (https://www.fda.gov/media/138945/download) The FDA concluded, based on clinical trial data and the continuing failure of treatment guidelines to support use of CQ or HCQ to treat patients with COVID-19, that “it is no longer reasonable to believe that oral formulations of HCQ and CQ may be effective in treating COVID-19, nor is it reasonable to believe that the known and potential benefits of these products outweigh their known and potential risks.”
A magistrate judge in the District of New Jersey recommended remand of more than one dozen lawsuits concerning allegedly defective hip implants in a June 15, 2020, decision analyzing Third Circuit precedent regarding the forum defendant rule in the context of snap removals.
Jackson v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 19-18667, is one of several cases filed by plaintiffs in New Jersey state court against the defendant Howmedica, which is incorporated and has its principal place of business in New Jersey. Pre-service, the defendant removed to federal court on the basis of diversity pursuant to Encompass Insurance Co. v. Stone Mansion Restaurant, Inc., 2018 WL 3999885 (3d Cir. Aug. 22, 2018), in which the Third Circuit held that a forum defendant may remove a case to federal court prior to being served.
In a case telling a “sorry story of disloyalty and deception piled upon deception,” the Third Circuit has held that licensees, not only owners, have standing to protect the confidentiality of trade secrets and the right to be compensated for their unlawful use and disclosure.