Subject: Class Actions

Ninth Circuit Confirms That Winning Early Summary Judgment May Be the Ultimate Preemptive Tactic for Beating Class Certification

Share

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.

Continue reading “Ninth Circuit Confirms That Winning Early Summary Judgment May Be the Ultimate Preemptive Tactic for Beating Class Certification”

California Consumers Can’t Escape Federal Jury Trial by Abandoning Available Damages Claims

Share

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.

Continue reading “California Consumers Can’t Escape Federal Jury Trial by Abandoning Available Damages Claims”

Sweet Escape: Tootsie Roll Label Changes Stop Plaintiff’s Slack-Fill Case Without Triggering Catalyst Fee Award

Share

The Ninth Circuit recently rejected a plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees under the so-called catalyst theory where the changes the defendant made in an effort to effectively moot the case were different from the changes the plaintiff had demanded in the litigation. The decision illustrates that a creative fix to an alleged issue may deter a plaintiff’s counsel from pursuing the case without entitling them to a fee award under the catalyst theory.

Continue reading “Sweet Escape: Tootsie Roll Label Changes Stop Plaintiff’s Slack-Fill Case Without Triggering Catalyst Fee Award”

Vermont Federal Court Orders Ben & Jerry’s “Happy Cows” Lawsuit Out to Pasture

Share

A Vermont federal court dismissed a lawsuit alleging consumer fraud, breach of warranty, and unjust enrichment against Ben & Jerry’s because representations about its dairy from “happy cows” did not run afoul of the law. But the court granted the plaintiff twenty days to amend.

In Ehlers v. Ben & Jerry’s Homemade Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-00194, a Vermont plaintiff sued defendants Conopco, Inc. d/b/a Unilever United States (Unilever) and its subsidiary Ben & Jerry’s Homemade Inc. (Ben & Jerry’s) on behalf of a proposed class seeking compensatory damages and injunctive relief. The plaintiff alleged that statements on Ben & Jerry’s ice cream cartons and website were materially misleading in violation of the Vermont Consumer Protection Act (VCPA) and constituted breach of an express warranty. The plaintiff also asserted a claim for unjust enrichment.

Continue reading “Vermont Federal Court Orders Ben & Jerry’s “Happy Cows” Lawsuit Out to Pasture”

A Warranty Claim by Any Other Name Remains a Warranty Claim – Illinois Federal Court Dismisses Claims Against Aloe Vera Retailer

Share

An Illinois federal court recently reinforced the distinction between a properly plead consumer fraud claim and an express warranty claim merely masquerading as a consumer fraud claim, while granting a defendant’s motion to dismiss.

In Parrott v. Family Dollar, Inc.the plaintiff alleged breach of warranty and consumer fraud claims against Family Dollar, Inc. regarding its aloe vera product. The Hon. Jorge L. Alonso of the Northern District of Illinois unmasked plaintiff’s consumer fraud claim as nothing more than a breach of warranty claim by another name, and subsequently granted defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Continue reading “A Warranty Claim by Any Other Name Remains a Warranty Claim – Illinois Federal Court Dismisses Claims Against Aloe Vera Retailer”

Claims That Manufacturers of IV Saline Solution Caused Public Health Crisis Twice Dismissed as Insufficiently Plead by Illinois Federal Court

Share

“In the age of COVID-19 and other public health challenges, supply levels in the medical industry occupy a prominent place in our national consciousness,” an Illinois federal judge noted earlier this month while dismissing a proposed class action against manufacturers of intravenous (IV) saline solution. This marked the second dismissal of the proposed class action because the plaintiffs failed to sufficiently back up antitrust allegations that the defendants conspired to manipulate the supply of the product.

Continue reading “Claims That Manufacturers of IV Saline Solution Caused Public Health Crisis Twice Dismissed as Insufficiently Plead by Illinois Federal Court”