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.
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 decision reinforcing the importance of expert testimony in design defect and failure to warn cases, the Eastern District of New York recently dismissed claims against the makers of PAM cooking spray.
Lawyers continue to work during the COVID-19 pandemic. As we discussed in a previous post, for litigators this may involve participating in remote depositions as courts attempt to keep discovery moving. We also provided tips for lawyers taking remote depositions. With thanks to our Faegre Drinker colleagues who have ventured into this new world and shared a great deal of useful advice with the authors, here we discuss some of the practical considerations for lawyers defending remote depositions.
The COVID-19 pandemic continues to keep many lawyers, clients and witnesses at home. As we discussed in a previous post, many courts are encouraging or requiring remote depositions, typically by videoconference, to keep discovery moving. Lawyers taking these depositions will have to do all of the things they usually do and more to deal with the challenges of a deposition environment unfamiliar to many of us.