Long-standing Case Arising from Hurricane Rejected

Readers know we don't have the resources here to update every case we post on, but here is an update on a case we posted about nearly six years ago.    See Henry v. St. Croix Alumina, LLC, No. 12-1844 (3rd Cir. 7/10/14)(unpublished).

The case arose out of the effects of Hurricane Georges, which hit the Virgin Islands in 1998. The plaintiffs filed suit in1999, alleging that during the storm two materials, bauxite and red mud, were distributed around the island. Bauxite is a red colored ore with the consistency of dirt or dust from which alumina is extracted and used to produce aluminum. A by-product of the alumina extraction process is a substance called red mud, which was stored in piles outside the refinery using a method known as dry-stacking.  Appellants allegedly sustained property damage and also mild illnesses/injuries as a result of contact with the red dust during and after the hurricane. Generally, Appellants experienced rashes, irritation of the eyes and skin, and itching. All but one of the seventeen Appellants had their symptoms disappear completely in the weeks and months following the hurricane.

The case had a long procedural history, with class certification, decertification, and partial certifications. Eventually the property damage claims settled, and the personal injury claims were dismissed. The dismissal of Appellants' personal injury claims was founded in large part on the court's rejection of their four proposed experts. The experts did not satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Evid. 702 and the accompanying test enunciated in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Without any expert testimony as to the cause of Appellants' injuries, the District Court ruled that the personal injury claims could not proceed and granted summary judgment to Appellees on those counts.

Three of the experts had opined on the amount of red mud that escaped the refinery and reached Appellants. Tarr concluded that some 160,000 pounds of particulates escaped from the refinery, and experts Bock and Kleppinger each stated that red mud was a "preponderance" or large component of the red dust that contacted Appellants.  However, as the District Court noted, each of the experts relied upon unique, qualitative methodologies to reach these conclusions. The District Court properly found that none of these methods had any of the hallmarks of reliable expert testimony under Daubert. The experts did not utilize a peer-reviewed methodology, subject to any known rate of error, which is generally accepted in the scientific community, or has otherwise been utilized outside the judicial context.

Much of the remaining opinion submitted by these experts was then excluded by the District Court as it did not "fit" with the case. For instance, Kleppinger and Bock testified as to the pH and toxicity of red mud stored at the refinery. The District Court held that this did not bear on the danger posed by the material that actually came into contact with Appellants. Critically, as the Court pointed out, Appellants offered no reliable testimony as to the amount and toxicity of the red dust which came into contact with Appellants. Finally, the District Court found Dr. Brautbar's testimony inadmissible, as it relied on the excluded expert opinions to establish that Appellants had come into contact with sufficient quantities of red mud to cause their claimed symptoms.

In sum, the District Court performed an exhaustive analysis of the proposed expert testimony, and determined that it was inadmissible. The court of appeals agreed with the reasoning and conclusions of the District Court, and affirmed its evidentiary rulings.
 

FDA Issues Further Nanotechnology Guidance

Late last month, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued one draft and three final guidance documents related to the use of nanotechnology in regulated products.

One final guidance addresses the agency’s overall approach for all products that it regulates, while the two additional final guidances and the new draft guidance provide specific guidance for the areas of foods, cosmetics and food for animals, respectively.

Readers may know from our earlier posts (and here and here) that nanotechnology is an emerging technology that allows scientists to create, explore and manipulate materials on a scale measured in nanometers—particles so small that they cannot be seen with a regular microscope. The technology has a broad range of potential applications, such as improving the packaging of food and altering the look and feel of cosmetics.

The three final guidance documents reflect the FDA’s current thinking on these issues after taking into account public comment received on the corresponding draft guidance documents previously issued (draft agency guidance in 2011; and draft cosmetics and foods guidances in 2012).

The FDA  continues to favor an approach to consider the specific characteristics of individual products. All four guidance documents encourage manufacturers to consult with the agency before taking their products to market. Consultations with the FDA early in the product development process may help to facilitate a mutual understanding about specific scientific and regulatory issues relevant to the nanotechnology product, and help address questions related to safety, effectiveness, public health impact and/or regulatory status of the product.

The guidance documents are:

Final Guidance for Industry: Considering Whether an FDA-Regulated Product Involves the Application of Nanotechnology

This guidance outlines overarching considerations for all FDA-regulated products, identifying points to consider when determining whether a product involves the use of nanotechnology. It is intended to help industry and others identify when they should consider potential implications for regulatory status, safety, effectiveness or public health impact that may arise with the application of nanotechnology in FDA-regulated products.

Final Guidance for Industry: Safety of Nanomaterials in Cosmetics

This guidance describes the FDA’s current thinking on the safety assessment of nanomaterials when used in cosmetic products and encourages manufacturers to consult with the FDA on test methods and data needed to support the substantiation of a product’s safety.

Final Guidance for Industry: Assessing the Effects of Significant Manufacturing Process Changes, Including Emerging Technologies, on the Safety and Regulatory Status of Food Ingredients and Food Contact Substances, Including Food Ingredients that are Color Additives

This guidance alerts manufacturers to the potential impact of any significant manufacturing process change, including changes involving nanotechnology, on the safety and regulatory status of food substances. This guidance also describes considerations for determining whether a significant manufacturing process change for a food substance already in the market affects the identity, safety, or regulatory status of the food substance, potentially warranting a regulatory submission to the FDA.

Draft Guidance for Industry: Use of Nanomaterials in Food for Animals

This draft guidance addresses issues related to the use of nanotechnology in food ingredients intended for use in food for animals. Public comments on this draft guidance are requested by September 10, 2014.

The FDA said it will continue to pursue ongoing scientific research and regulatory efforts and will consider new studies and data, as they become available, to determine any future actions. 

Texas Supreme Court Offers Causation Guidance in Mesothelioma Cases

The Texas Supreme Court ruled that a defendant will not have to pay a $12 million verdict in an asbestos case because there was inadequate proof the company’s products actually caused the alleged injury. See Bostic, et al. v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., No. 10-0775 (Texas 7/11/14).

In Borg-Warner Corp. v. Flores, 232 S.W.3d 765 (Tex. 2007), the court had discussed the standards imposed by Texas law for establishing causation in asbestos-disease cases. Flores had concerned a plaintiff suffering from asbestosis. This case involved mesothelioma, and the court held that the standard of substantial factor causation recognized in Flores also applied to mesothelioma cases.  The court did not impose a strict but-for causation standard, but held that the plaintiffs had failed to offer legally sufficient evidence of causation, and accordingly it affirmed the lower court's judgment.

Under section 431 of the Restatement Second of Torts, the Texas court had held that to establish causation in fact the plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s product was a substantial factor in causing the disease, and that mere proof that the plaintiff was exposed to “some” respirable fibers traceable to the defendant was insufficient. The word substantial is used to denote the fact that the defendant’s conduct has such an effect in producing the harm as to lead reasonable persons to regard it as a cause, using that word in the sense of responsibility.  Proof of mere frequency, regularity, and proximity of potential exposure to asbestos (sufficient in some states) is in Texas
necessary but not sufficient, as it provides none of the quantitative information necessary to support causation under Texas law.  While the plaintiff was not required to establish causation with “mathematical precision,” the court clearly required defendant-specific evidence relating to the approximate dose to which the plaintiff was exposed, coupled with evidence that the dose was a substantial factor in causing the asbestos-related disease.

In rejecting a standard that “some” exposure would suffice, the court recognized that most chemically induced adverse health effects clearly demonstrate thresholds; so, there must be reasonable evidence that the exposure was of sufficient magnitude to exceed the threshold before a likelihood of causation can be inferred. Plaintiffs urged that the standards established in Flores were not applicable in a mesothelioma case because relatively smaller quantities of asbestos can result in mesothelioma.  The court concluded that the Flores framework for reviewing the legal sufficiency of causation evidence lent itself to both types of cases. Even in mesothelioma cases proof of “some exposure” or “any exposure” alone will not suffice to establish causation. While the experts in this case testified that smaller amounts of asbestos exposure can result in mesothelioma, that fact alone does not merit a different analysis. With both asbestosis and  mesothelioma, the likelihood of contracting the disease increases with the dose. 

The court noted that If any exposure at all were sufficient to cause mesothelioma, everyone would suffer from it or at least be at serious risk of contracting the disease. Everyone is exposed to asbestos in the ambient air; it is plentiful in the environment, especially if you’re a typical urban dweller.  Plaintiff's expert confirmed that we all have some asbestos in our lungs, but that background levels are sufficiently low that they do not cause disease; instead, multiples of fibers many times over were required to cause mesothelioma.

More fundamentally, if the court were to adopt a less demanding standard for mesothelioma cases
and accept that any exposure to asbestos is sufficient to establish liability, the result essentially
would be not just strict liability but absolute liability against any company whose asbestos-containing product crossed paths with the plaintiff throughout his entire lifetime. However, exposure does not always result in disease. The court said it had never embraced the concept of industry-wide liability on grounds that proof of causation might be difficult. 

If an “any exposure” theory of liability was accepted for mesothelioma cases because science
has so far been unable to establish the precise dose below which the risk of disease disappears, the same theory would arguably apply to all carcinogens. The any exposure theory effectively accepts that a failure of science to determine the maximum safe dose of a toxin necessarily means that every exposure, regardless of amount, is a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s illness. This approach negates the plaintiff’s burden to prove causation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Further, said the court, there are cases where a plaintiff’s exposure to asbestos can be tied to a defendant, but that exposure is minuscule as compared to the exposure resulting from other sources. Proof of any exposure at all from a defendant should not end the inquiry and result in automatic liability. The Restatement Third of Torts provides that when an actor’s negligent conduct constitutes only a trivial contribution to a causal set that is a factual cause of harm, the harm is not within the scope of the actor’s liability.

The any exposure theory is also illogical in mesothelioma cases, where a small exposure can
result in disease, because it posits that any exposure from a defendant above background levels
could impose liability, while the background level of asbestos should be ignored. But the expert
testimony in this case was undisputed that the background level varies considerably from location
to location. The court could not see how the theory can, as a matter of logic, exclude higher than normal background levels as the cause of the plaintiff’s disease, but accept that any exposure from an individual defendant, no matter how small, should be accepted as a cause in fact of the disease. Under plaintiffs'  any exposure theory a background dose of 20 does not cause cancer, but a defendant’s dose of 2 plus a background dose of 5 somehow does.

Expanding on the notion of substantial factor, the court noted that in the Havner decision it had enunciated principles in toxic tort cases that (1) expert testimony of causation must be scientifically reliable, (2) the plaintiff must establish the elements of his claim by a preponderance of the evidence, and (3) where direct evidence of causation is lacking, scientifically reliable evidence in the form of epidemiological studies showing that the defendant’s product more than doubled the plaintiff’s risk of injury appropriately corresponds to the legal standard of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. These principles, said the court, should apply to asbestos cases. As to the
availability of scientific studies, asbestos-related disease has been researched for many decades and the population of potentially affected persons numbers in the millions. A more than doubling of the risk must be shown through reliable expert testimony that is based on epidemiological studies or similarly reliable scientific testimony. 

Multiple-exposure cases raise the issues of how the finder of fact should consider exposure
from sources other than the defendant, what proof might be required as to those other sources, and who has the burden of proof regarding those other sources. These are difficult questions, said the court, but a plaintiff should be required to establish more than a doubling of the risk attributable to the defendant’s product;  the court did not require a plaintiff to track down every possible source of asbestos exposure and disprove that those other exposures caused the disease. In multiple-exposure cases few if any plaintiffs could ever establish which particular fibers from which particular defendant caused the disease.  However, when evidence is introduced of exposure from other defendants or other sources, mere proof of more than a doubling of the risk may not suffice to establish substantial factor causation. Suppose, hypothesized the court, a plaintiff shows that his exposure to a particular defendant’s product more than doubled his chances of contracting a disease, but the evidence at trial also established that another source of the substance increased the chances by a factor of 10,000. In this circumstance, a trier of fact or a court reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence should be allowed to conclude that the defendant’s product was not a substantial factor in causing the disease.

 

Class Complaint Dismissed WITH Prejudice

The Second Circuit recently affirmed a trial court decision dismissing a proposed class action challenging the marketing of certain cosmetic products.  See DiMuro v. Clinique Labs, LLC, No. 13-4551 (2d Cir. 7/10/14) (unpublished).

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action complaint asserting claims under the Connecticut, New Jersey, and Illinois consumer fraud statutes, along with claims for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and unjust enrichment, arising from defendants’ marketing of seven different cosmetic products sold under the “Repairwear” product line. But while plaintiffs’ consolidated class action complaint asserted claims arising out of the marketing of seven different products, the named plaintiffs only alleged to have purchased and used three of the seven products.

Plaintiffs argued that they nevertheless had class standing to bring claims for Repairwear products that they did not buy-- a commonly attempted but seldom successful tactic.  Here, each of the seven different products have different ingredients, and defendant allegedly made different advertising claims for each product. Unique evidence would therefore be required to prove that the 35-some advertising statements for each of the seven different products were false and misleading. As a result, the court could not conclude that claims brought by a purchaser of one product would raise a set of concerns nearly identical to that of a purchaser of another Repairwear product. Accordingly, plaintiffs lacked standing to bring claims for the four products that they did not purchase.

The court also affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs’ consumer fraud claims because plaintiffs failed to plead them with the requisite particularity under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).  Rule 9(b) requires that a complaint specify the statements that the plaintiff contends were fraudulent, identify the speaker, state where and when the statements were made, and explain why the statements were fraudulent.  E.g., Mills v. Polar Molecular Corp., 12 F.3d 1170, 1175 (2d Cir. 1993). One of the cardinal purposes of Rule 9(b) is to “provid[e] a defendant fair notice of plaintiff’s claim, to enable preparation of [a] defense.” See DiVittorio v. Equidyne Extractive Indus., Inc., 822 F.2d 1242, 1247 (2d Cir. 1987). Plaintiffs’ consolidated complaint was wholly conclusory and lacked the particularity required to ensure that defendant received fair notice of the claims.

Specifically, plaintiffs’ "group-pleading" as to the products and the advertisements at issue was
inconsistent with Rule 9(b)’s particularity requirement in that the complaint failed to specify which
of the alleged statements were fraudulent and with regard to what product.  It simply alleged that the products, collectively, cannot work. Given that the seven different products have different ingredients, different intended uses, and that defendant made different advertising claims for each one, this was wholly insufficient to satisfy Rule 9(b). Plaintiffs failed to address the different product ingredients, different intended uses, and different claims.

The complaint also failed to allege that any of the named plaintiffs even used the product, let alone used the product as directed. Similarly, the named plaintiffs did not allege what results they received from their use of the product. They only alleged that they received “no value,” “did not receive what they bargained for,” or “did not get what they paid for.” Since they did not allege which particular advertising claims each of the named plaintiffs relied on when purchasing the product, the conclusion that they did not receive what they bargained for had no ascertainable meaning. 

Plaintiffs’ claims for breach of express warranty and breach of implied warranty also relied on
allegations that the products did not perform as advertised. These allegations were wholly conclusory, and did not provide a sufficient factual basis to establish a plausible breach of any specifically identified express or implied warranty.

Pretty standard stuff, really, but let's turn to the most useful aspect of the analysis.  The complaint was dismissed with prejudice.  Leave to amend is given when justice so requires.  But what too often happens is that plaintiffs file a conclusory, fishing expedition of a complaint; the defendant expends considerable cost to point out the many deficiencies of the pleading; the court dismisses appropriately dismisses the complaint, and plaintiffs use the opinion as their model to draft an amended pleading-- often repeating the process several times, until they finally get a minimally acceptable pleading that bears little resemblance to their original complaint.  Here, the court recognized that plaintiffs are “not entitled to an advisory opinion from the Court informing them of the deficiencies in the complaint and then an opportunity to cure those deficiencies.” Bellikoff v. Eaton Vance Corp., 481 F.3d 110, 118 (2d Cir. 2007). Moreover, a plaintiff need not be given leave to amend if the plaintiff fails to specify either to the district court or to the court of appeals how amendment would cure the pleading deficiencies in its complaint. The district court’s decision to deny plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint was not an abuse of discretion. First, the plaintiffs failed to provide any detail as to what facts they would or could) plead to cure their pleading deficiencies. Second -- and this is very commonly the case --  much if not all of the information necessary for a properly pled complaint was and had always been in the possession of the plaintiffs. For example, which particular representations they relied upon, if and how they had used the products, what the results were.   Useful discussion of why leave should NOT be granted in these consumer fraud cases.

Who's Who Legal Recognizes SHB

Who’s Who Legal: The International Who’s Who of Business Lawyers has named Shook, Hardy & Bacon its 2014 Product Liability Defense Law Firm of the Year.

The publication notes that "Shook Hardy & Bacon has a first-class product liability practice and is a go-to firm for numerous multinational organizations seeking to defend claims in the organic chemistry, electrical and mechanical engineering, pharmacology, toxicology, and computer software and hardware industries."

 
Who’s Who Legal has recognized 24 SHB partners as leading product liability defense attorneys, including your humble blogger.

Component Parts Supplier Case to Watch

The California Supreme Court has agreed to review a lower appeals court's ruling on the application of the component parts doctrine in a metal worker's suit claiming lung  injury. See Ramos, et al. v. Brenntag Specialties Inc., et al., No. B248038 (Cal. review granted 7/9/14).

In Ramos v. Brenntag Specialties, Inc. , 224 Cal.App.4th 123, the court had disagreed with the well-reasoned opinion in Maxton v. Western States Metals, 203 Cal.App.4th 81 (2012). 

Generally, suppliers of raw materials to manufacturers cannot be liable for negligence, or under a strict products liability theory, to the manufacturers‘ employees who sustain personal injuries as a result of using the raw materials in the manufacturing process. Only in extraordinary circumstances —such as when the raw materials are contaminated, the supplier exercises substantial control of the manufacturing process, or the supplier provides inherently dangerous raw materials— can suppliers be held liable. Product components include raw materials, bulk products, and other constituent products sold for integration into other products. The products at issue in these cases clearly are mere raw materials because they could be used in innumerable ways, and they were not sold directly to consumers in the market place. Rather, they were sold to plaintiff‘s employer for the purpose of using them to manufacture other products. 

Under California law, component and raw material suppliers are not liable to ultimate consumers when the goods or material they supply are not inherently dangerous, they sell goods or material in bulk to a sophisticated buyer, the material is substantially changed during the manufacturing process, and the supplier has a limited role in developing and designing the end product. When these factors exist, the social cost of imposing a duty to the ultimate consumers or users far exceeds any additional protection provided. The rationale for not imposing liability on a supplier of product components is a matter of equity and public policy. Such suppliers ordinarily do not participate in developing the product components into finished products for consumers. Imposing liability on suppliers of product components would force them to scrutinize the buyer-manufacturer‘s manufacturing process and end-products in order reduce their exposure to lawsuits. This would require many suppliers to retain experts in a huge variety of areas, especially if the product components are versatile raw materials. Courts generally do not impose this onerous burden on suppliers of product components because the buyer- manufacturer is in a better position to ensure safety.

In Ramos, a different lower appellate court rejected the argument that raw material suppliers are not liable for injuries caused by finished products that use those raw materials. Hopefully, the California Supreme Court will clarify.

Motion to Dismiss Granted in Juice Case

A California federal court has rejected a proposed class action complaint arising from alleged misleading labeling and advertising of vegetable juice products as "raw" and "organic." See Alamilla, et al. v. The Hain Celestial Group Inc., et al., No. 3:13-cv-05595 (N.D. Calif. 7/2/14).

Specifically, the complaint asserted that the effects of a pressure treatment in the making of the products were "similar to those of cooking and pasteurization, namely the destruction of vitamins, nutrients, live enzymes, nutritional value, and health benefits." On their own, said the court, these allegations might seem to state a plausible claim that the defendants' representations could lead a reasonable consumer to conclude that pressure treatment did not deprive the juice of its nutritional value in the same way that pasteurization does.

But, the court said, the complaint also incorporated by reference two articles that contradicted the plaintiffs' claim. In particular, the complaint quoted and incorporated by reference a published article that concluded that pressurization has "little or no effects on nutritional and sensory quality aspects of foods."  Although the plaintiffs did not include this specific conclusion language in their complaint, there was no doubt they had incorporated by reference the entire text of the articles they quoted in their complaint.

The articles the plaintiffs cited contradicted the allegation upon which their entire complaint hinged—namely, that pressure treatment deprives juice of nutritional value to a similar degree as pasteurization. Courts "need not accept as true allegations contradicting documents that are referenced in the complaint." Lazy Y Ranch LTD v. 24 Behrens, 546 F.3d 580, 588 (9th Cir. 2008). "A plaintiff can plead himself out of court by alleging facts which show that he has no claim, even though he was not required to allege those facts." See Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988-989 (9th Cir. 2001). 

Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed with prejudice.
 

Chambers Rankings- SHB Recognized

Chambers & Partners has launched its 2014 edition of Chambers USA, recognizing Shook, Hardy & Bacon’s product liability, environmental, intellectual property, and labor and employment practices. Of particular note, Chambers stated that SHB has a “broad range of product liability clients and a great grasp of the science involved.” 

Chambers once again recognized the firm with a Band 1 national rating in the area of Products Liability & Mass Torts, noting SHB’s prominence in tobacco, pharmaceutical, toxic tort, and automobile matters.

Chambers also recognized more than 20 Shook attorneys with national and regional rankings, including my colleague Bill Martucci.


Your humble blogger was honored to be mentioned again in Chambers for Nationwide Product Liability & Mass Torts.

Class Certification Denied on Ascertainability Grounds

A federal court in New Jersey last week rejected a class certification effort by plaintiffs complaining about the marketing of Skinnygirl Margaritas. See Stewart v. Beam Global Spirits & Wine, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-05149 (D.N.J., 6/27/14).

Plaintiffs essentially allege that despite being marketed and sold as an "all natural" product and a "healthy alternative to other commercial Margarita products" defendants' low-calorie, pre-mixed alcoholic beverage product known as "Skinnygirl Margarita" allegedly did not live up to these claims. Plaintiffs purportedly purchased Skinnygirl Margarita based on these alleged representations by defendants in magazine advertisements and on the product packaging.

Plaintiffs moved for class certification, and the issue quickly became ascertainability. In recent years, the Third Circuit, like many courts, has increasingly emphasized the importance of ascertainability of a class with respect to classes certified under Rule 23(b)(3). See, e.g., Carrera v. Bayer Corp., 727 F.3d 300, 305-08(3d Cir. 2013); Hayes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,725 F.3d 349, 354-56 (3d Cir. 2013); Marcus v. BMW of N. Am., LLC,687 F.3d 583, 592-94 (3d Cir. 2012).  In Marcus, the Third Circuit recognized that "an essential prerequisite of a class action, at least with respect to actions [brought] under Rule 23(b)(3), is that the class must be currently and readily ascertainable based on objective criteria." Marcus, 687 F.3d at 592-93; see also Hayes, 725 F.3d at 355 ("As 'an essential prerequisite' to class certification, . . . plaintiff must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the class is ascertainable.") (citations omitted); Carrera, 727 F.3d at 306 ("a plaintiff must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the class is 'currently and readily ascertainable based on objective criteria,' and a trial court must undertake a rigorous analysis of the evidence to determine if the standard is met.") (citations omitted).

Several important objectives are served by virtue of the ascertainability requirement for Rule 23(b)(3) class actions: (1) the requirement eliminates serious administrative burdens that are incongruous with the efficiencies expected in a class action by insisting on the easy identification of class members; (2) the requirement protects absent class members by facilitating the best notice practicable' under Rule 23(c)(2); and (3) the requirement protects defendants by ensuring that those persons who will be bound by the final judgment are clearly identifiable. Marcus, 687 F.3d at 593; see also Hayes,725 F.3d at 355. 

Ascertainability thus consists of at least two important elements -- the class must be defined with reference to objective criteria, and there must be a reliable and administratively feasible mechanism for determining whether putative class members fall within the class definition.  See Hayes, 725 F.3d at 355. Ascertainability necessitates an inquiry into whether the defendants' records can ascertain class members, and if not, whether there is a reliable, administratively feasible alternative.  The Third Circuit has made clear that where class members are impossible to identify without extensive and individualized fact-finding or mini-trials, then a class action is inappropriate. Marcus, 687 F.3d at 593.

When considering a plaintiff's proposed mechanism for ascertaining the class, the courts have cautioned against approving a method that would amount to no more than ascertaining by potential class members' "say so" -- by, for example, having potential class members submit affidavits that promise they meet the class definition. Without further indicia of reliability, permitting such a method would essentially force defendants to accept as true absent persons' declarations that they are members of the class, raising serious due process implications.   

Defendants argued that the proposed class members cannot be identified from sales records; they pointed out that the named plaintiffs themselves had no objective evidence, or even consistent testimony, regarding their own alleged purchases. Some defendants were several steps removed from the actual retail purchases, and as a result, never had any record of which consumers bought the product. Absent proper records, it would be impossible to determine class membership without significant inquiry, resulting in a mini-hearing on the merits of each case.  

Plaintiffs proposed a mechanism for ascertaining the Classes which required that putative class members submit affidavits or attestations regarding their membership in the Classes. And defendants responded that they cannot be required to simply accept the self-serving say so of proposed class members; they must be permitted to exercise its due-process right individually to probe each putative class member's statements regarding their claimed purchase. Defendants had a due process right to challenge not only the named plaintiffs' claims that they purchased Skinnygirl Margarita, but also the claims of absent class members. That means individualized fact-finding and mini-trials as to every single absent class member's claim, which in turn means that class treatment is per se inappropriate.

So, plaintiffs' only suggested method for ascertaining the putative class members rested entirely on the submission of affidavits by individuals who claim that they purchased Skinnygirl Margarita; those affidavits would actually  need to include: (1) dates of purchases of Skinnygirl Margarita; (2) locations and retail establishments where purchases were made; (3) frequency of purchases; (4) quantity of purchases; (5) cost of purchases, etc. These types of information would be vital to determining whether each putative member fits within the class definitions in this case.

Moreover, even assuming that the affidavits sought all that information, obtaining this information by way of affidavits did not appear to be an effective method for ascertaining the Classes. Without any independently verifiable proof of purchase through receipts, retail records, or otherwise, putative class members would likely not accurately remember every Skinnygirl Margarita purchase they made during the class period, let alone where these purchases were made and the prices they paid each time. The submission of affidavits supplying such information would be very likely to invite speculation, or worse, not to mention that this process would result in an extremely burdensome task for the Court or a claims administrator even attempting to verify class members' claims. See Weiner v. Snapple Beverage Corp., 2010 WL 3119452, at *13 (S.D. N.Y. Aug. 5, 2010). Such a method cannot fairly be construed as an administratively feasible one which utilizes objective criteria.

Defendants have a right to cross-examine the plaintiffs on their alleged purchases, and cannot be forced to accept as true absent persons' declarations that they are members of the class, without further indicia of reliability.  Despite plaintiffs' attempt to argue otherwise, the rulings in cases like Marcus, Hayes, and Carrera make clear that relying on affidavits of putative class members as the primary method of ascertaining the members of the class is not a prudent course of action for a district court and is generally insufficient to meet the requirements of Rule 23. Such affidavits essentially amount to nothing more than reliance on the subjective "say so" of the putative members that they meet the class definition and are entitled to relief, and practically ignores the need for a class definition based on objective criteria. 

Class certification denied.

 

SHB Ranked in The Legal 500 As A Top Litigation Firm

We are happy to note that Shook, Hardy & Bacon has been recognized as a nationally recommended firm in both litigation and intellectual property in the newly issued 2014 edition of The Legal 500 United States.


The firm was lauded for its “deep bench of trial lawyers and strong reputation for high-profile defense work across various industries,” including its defense of thousands of individual tobacco cases, multiple class actions, and multi-district litigation. 

SHB was one of only three firms to receive top-tier recognition in the guide’s product liability: consumer products section, and one of six to receive a top-tier ranking in the pharmaceuticals and medical devices category. Additionally, SHB’s automotive/transport and toxic tort defense practices earned tier-two rankings, placing each group among the top 16 practices in the nation.

SHB was also highlighted in the guide’s intellectual property: patent prosecution section, which singled out SHB’s expertise in the telecom, computer software, and pharmaceutical and medical device industries.