Products Liability Seminar Worth a Look

I am pleased to announce that I will be speaking at the upcoming DRI Product Liability Conference taking place April 11-13, 2012 in Las Vegas, Nevada.

I’ll be speaking on Wednesday afternoon, April 11th, as part of the session of the Mass Torts & Class Actions subcommittee.  The topic is Medical Monitoring. 

The conference will include many distinguished speakers, preeminent attorneys, and in-house counsel, discussing the current state of products liability law.  As if the excellent educational programs weren’t enough, this Products Liability conference provides a fantastic opportunity to network with hundreds of colleagues from across the country, both during the scheduled receptions and at informal evening social venues.

Brochure attached here. Registration here.

I look forward to seeing many of my faithful readers in Las Vegas.
 

Court of Appeals Affirms Dismissal of FEMA Trailer Claims

The Fifth Circuit recently upheld the dismissal of putative class actions filed by Mississippi and Alabama residents against the federal government alleging trailers provided to Hurricane Katrina-impacted citizens contained hazardous levels of formaldehyde. See In re: FEMA Trailer Formaldehyde Products Liability Litigation (Mississippi Plaintiffs), No. 10-30921, and In re: FEMA Trailer Formaldehyde Products Liability Litigation (Alabama Plaintiffs), No. 10-30945 (5th Cir. 2012).

Plaintiffs-Appellants brought this Federal Tort Claims Act action against the United States for injuries allegedly related to their exposure to elevated levels of formaldehyde contained in the component materials of the Emergency Housing Units (“EHUs”) provided to them by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Readers will recall we have posted about various aspects of this litigation before. In October 2007, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created MDL No. 07-1873 (In re: FEMA Trailer Formaldehyde Products Liability Litigation), and assigned the complex litigation to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

The key facts: After the hurricanes, FEMA activated its Individual and Household Assistance Program and, from September 2005 through May 1, 2009, the agency supplied disaster victims with EHUs, at no cost, to use as temporary shelter. The EHUs were taken from FEMA’s preexisting inventory, which had been purchased from public retailers as well as directly from manufacturers. The EHUs were small, portable, and usually placed at the disaster victims’ home sites. The trailers were installed by government contractors who placed the units on blocks or piers, anchored them to the ground using straps or bolts, and connected them to public sewer and water lines.

In March 2006, when FEMA began receiving formaldehyde-related complaints, it encouraged shelter occupants to ventilate their EHUs by opening the doors and windows. In June 2006, FEMA prepared an informational brochure informing EHU occupants of the potential risks of formaldehyde exposure, encouraging them to ventilate their units, and urging them to seek medical help if they developed health problems related to formaldehyde. In September 2006, FEMA began working with the Environmental Protection Agency to test the EHUs for formaldehyde, and also developed various new mitigation techniques.  In July 2007, FEMA distributed another informational brochure to EHU occupants, set up a hotline and a dedicated call center to field formaldehyde complaints from occupants, and continued to assist occupants in locating alternative housing. FEMA subsequently entered into an agreement with the CDC to conduct additional testing, the findings of which were compiled in a third informational brochure and distributed to EHU occupants in early 2008.

The federal government filed various motions to dismiss the claims against it, or in the alternative for summary judgment, based on the FTCA’s discretionary function exception.The district court denied the motions and held that the FTCA’s discretionary function exception might not apply to some or all of appellants’ claims, the determination of which would be driven by the facts of each individual case.  The district court then denied class certification and scheduled a series of bellwether trials in the MDL, but none of the FTCA claims brought by the bellwether plaintiffs against the Government advanced to the trial stage.

The Government then moved under Federal Rule 12(b)(1) to dismiss Appellants’ FTCA claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on the grounds that no analogous private liability existed under the Mississippi and Alabama emergency statutes.  The district court granted the Government’s motion and dismissed appellants’ FTCA claims. Plaintiffs appealed to the Fifth Circuit.

 A plaintiff may only sue the United States if a federal statute explicitly provides for a waiver of sovereign immunity. The United States must consent to be sued, and that consent is a prerequisite to federal jurisdiction. Delta Commercial Fisheries Ass’n v. Gulf of Mex. Fishery Mgmt. Council, 364 F.3d 269, 273 (5th Cir. 2004). Waivers of sovereign immunity are narrowly construed in favor of the United States. In re Supreme Beef Processors, Inc., 468 F.3d 248, 253 (5th Cir. 2006). The FTCA is recognized as providing a waiver of sovereign immunity and provides the sole basis of recovery for tort claims against the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1346 and § 2671, et seq.; In re Supreme Beef Processors, 468 F.3d at 252 n.4. But the Act provides that the United States shall be liable in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances. See
28 U.S.C. § 2674.

The "same manner" analysis is a mix of federal and state law. The FTCA requires the  Government's liability to be measured in accordance with the law of the state where the alleged act or omission occurred, so here the Appellants’ FTCA claims were limited by the relevant provisions set forth in Mississippi and Alabama tort law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1); Richards v. United States, 369 U.S. 1, 11-14 (1962); Cleveland ex rel. Cleveland v. United States, 457 F.3d 397, 403 (5th Cir. 2006). Whether a private person in “like circumstances” would be subject to liability is also a question of sovereign immunity and, thus, is ultimately a question of federal law. See United States v. Olson, 546 U.S. 43, 44 (2005). Because the federal government could never be exactly like a private actor, a court’s job in applying the standard is to find the most reasonable analogy. LaBarge v. Cnty. of Mariposa, 798 F.2d 364, 366-69 (9th Cir. 1986). Inherent differences between the government and a private person cannot be allowed to disrupt this analysis. The Fifth Circuit has consistently held that the government is entitled to raise any and all defenses that would potentially be available to a private citizen or entity under state law. Camacho v. Tex. Workforce Comm'n, 445 F.3d 407, 410 (5th Cir. 2006). Therefore, if a private person under “like circumstances” would be shielded from liability pursuant to a state statute, lower courts must decline to exercise subject matter jurisdiction in a case like this.

Because, here, the Mississippi and Alabama emergency statutes abrogate the tort liability of a private person who, (1) voluntarily, (2) without compensation, (3) allows his property or premises to be used as shelter during or in recovery from a natural disaster, the Government’s voluntary, cost-free provision of the EHUs to disaster victims, in connection with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, was
also immunized conduct under the statute.  Despite plaintiffs' arguments, the Government’s provision of the government-owned EHUs, as implemented by FEMA, was voluntary because it was under no contractual or legal obligation, under any federal legislation, to provide the EHUs to disaster victims in response to the disasters. The Government did not receive compensation from the disaster victims in exchange for letting them use the EHUs. (The collection of taxes by the Government was not comparable to the traditional quid pro quo compensation contemplated by the statute.) In addition, the Government’s actions relating to the EHUs fell within the time frame contemplated by the statute as “during or in recovery from” a major disaster, since FEMA’s temporary emergency housing program ran from the hurricanes up to May, 2009.

Because Mississippi and Alabama emergency laws would protect those private individuals who shelter natural disaster victims from tort liability, the federal government's voluntary provision of the trailers was likewise immunized, the court concluded.

As an alternative, the appellants asked the Fifth Circuit to certify questions to the state supreme courts of Alabama and Mississippi regarding the meaning of the state emergency statutes, but the appeals court agreed with the district court that these questions did not warrant certification. Dismissals affirmed.

Junk Food Junk Science Exposed

Much of the litigation our clients confront on a daily basis seems predicated on the philosophy that all predicaments, all injuries, must be the fault of someone else.  There is no such thing as personal responsibility; individuals need not face the consequences of choices they make. Why change your risky behavior when you can sue someone else for it?

This same approach is the foundation of the effort to remove all soda and so-called “junk foods” from our schools.  But, is the mere availability of such products in schools actually the cause of  childhood obesity -- certainly an important public health concern?

Readers may want to note a recent study published in the journal Sociology of Education.  See VanHook & Altman, Competitive Food Sales in Schools and Childhood Obesity: A Longitudinal Study, 85 Sociology of Education 23 (January 2012).

The study followed  nearly 20,000 students who started kindergarten back in 1998. The researchers recorded the students’ BMI (body mass index) in fifth grade and again in eighth grade, and correlated these data points with the availability of  junk food at their schools (like snacks, candy, and soda).  (The researchers did factor in race and ethnicity, socio-economic status, and other factors that might affect weight gain.)

Surprise, surprise?  They found no link between children’s weight and the sale of these foods in the nearly 1000 schools.  About 1/3 were overweight in schools with and schools without. This actually makes compete sense, and follows on other studies that showed when students couldn’t buy soda at school, they simply compensated by drinking more at home, before and after. See Taber, et al., Banning All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages in Middle Schools, Arch. Pediatr. Adolesc. Med. 2011; 0: 20112001-7.

Bashing food companies may make some feel better, and banning sales in schools may allow some to pat themselves on the back for a job well done, but selling these foods in school has little or nothing to do with whether children will become overweight.  The real issue is parental responsibility --  how, what, and how much parents are feeding their children at home; what eating patterns they instill, and what exercise parents encourage in their kids. Admittedly, changing parental behavior is a lot harder than banning the soda machine, but it is also the only approach likely to make a significant impact on this issue.  Regulation and litigation are not the answers.

Court of Appeals Compels Arbitration, Not Class Litigation

The role of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in alleged consumer product defect cases continues to be a hotly disputed issue.  Plaintiff lawyers prefer the class action device, with its ability to pressure blackmail settlements, while product makers continue to require in product literature that consumers go the quicker and cheaper route of ADR.

The Third Circuit held last week that a putative class of computer customers should arbitrate, not litigate, their product defect claims against Dell Inc., even though the arbitration forum originally named in the computer purchase "terms and conditions" was no longer available. See Raheel Ahmad Khan, et al. v. Dell Inc., No.10-3655 (3d Cir.).

This appeal involved a matter of first impression for this court– whether Section 5 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) required the appointment of a substitute arbitrator when the arbitrator designated by the parties was unavailable.  The district court denied Dell's Motion to Compel Arbitration, based on the belief that the arbitration provision was rendered unenforceable because it provided for the parties to arbitrate exclusively before a forum that was unavailable when plaintiff commenced suit. The district court also refused to appoint a substitute arbitrator, finding that it could not compel the parties to submit to an arbitral forum to which they had not agreed.

Khan purchased a Dell computer through Dell's website; he alleged that his unit suffered from design defects, causing his computer to overheat and thereby destroy the computer's motherboard. Khan allegedly replaced the motherboard multiple times. Eventually, the  warranty expired. In 2009, Khan filed a putative consumer class action on behalf of himself and other similarly situated purchasers and lessees of the allegedly defectively designed computers.

But to complete the purchase, plaintiff had been required to click a box stating “I AGREE to Dell's Terms and Conditions of Sale.” Just beneath was a box requiring "BINDING ARBITRATION ADMINISTERED BY THE NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM (NAF)."  However, at the time the lawsuit was filed, the NAF had gotten out of the business of conducting consumer arbitrations pursuant to a Consent Judgment, which resolved litigation brought by the Attorney General of Minnesota.  Although Khan suggested that Dell must have chosen the NAF based on its alleged corporate-friendly disposition, the record did not show that Dell was aware of the practices challenged by the state AG at the time that it selected the NAF as the arbitral forum governing Khan's purchase, or that Dell selected the NAF for any improper reason.

The arbitration provision did not designate a replacement forum in the event that NAF was unavailable for any reason. But, the product Terms and Conditions did incorporate the Federal Arbitration Act.  The court of appeals noted that, because this was a question of arbitrability, it was governed by the FAA. Congress passed the FAA in response to widespread judicial hostility to arbitration agreements. The FAA reflects a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration. The federal courts have regularly noted that questions of arbitrability must be addressed with a healthy regard for this federal policy favoring arbitration.

The particular problem presented in this case – the unavailability of the NAF – was addressed in section 5 of the FAA, which provides a mechanism for substituting an arbitrator when the designated arbitrator is unavailable. In determining the applicability of Section 5 of the FAA when an arbitrator is unavailable, courts have focused on whether the designation of the arbitrator was “integral” to the arbitration provision or was merely an ancillary consideration. Only if the choice of forum is an integral part of the agreement to arbitrate, rather than an ancillary logistical concern, will the failure of the chosen forum preclude arbitration. In other words, a court will decline to appoint a substitute arbitrator, as provided in the FAA, only if the parties' choice of forum is so central to the arbitration agreement that the unavailability of that arbitrator brings the agreement essentially to an end. In this light, said the court, the parties must unambiguously express their intent not to arbitrate their disputes in the event that the designated forum became unavailable.

Plaintiff stressed that the NAF's rules were incorporated into the contract, and that these rules provide that all arbitrations must be conducted by the NAF or an entity having an agreement with it.  The court found this requirement ambiguous as to what should happen in the event that the NAF was unavailable. The NAF's rules provided that they shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the FAA and that, if any portion of the NAF rules were found to be unenforceable, that portion shall be severed and the remainder of the rules shall continue to apply.  This suggested the possibility of substitutions.

The dissent argued that it was important why the NAF was not available to arbitrate. But, the terms and conditions clearly contained an agreement to resolve disputes through arbitration, rather than through litigation. And the reason the forum was not available was not dispositive.

 

Study Examines Impact of FDA Drug Risk Communications

A recurring topic here at MassTortDefense is the role of hazard communications in product safety, and the related issues of a consumer reading, heeding, or relying on such warnings.  This is particularly true in the area of prescription drug litigation, focused on over at Drug and Device Law.

So, that makes a recent study in Medical Care interesting reading: Dusetzina, et al.,  Impact of FDA Drug Risk Communications on Health Care Utilization and Health Behaviors: A Systematic Review.

The paper reviews the literature of the past 20 years on the impact of FDA drug risk communications on medication utilization, health care services use, and health outcomes.  These 50 or so studies covered roughly 16 therapeutic classes; most used medical or pharmacy claims and a few examined patient-provider communication, decision making, or risk perceptions.

The authors concluded that although some FDA drug risk communications had immediate and strong impacts, many had either delayed or no impact on health care utilization or health behaviors. These data demonstrate the complexity of using risk communication to improve the quality and safety of prescription drug use, and suggest the importance of continued assessments of the effect of future advisories and label changes, according to the authors.

Although not the focus of the article, the findings are relevant to those of us who need to think about the learned intermediary doctrine, preemption, and other legal warning doctrines.

U.S. Chamber Describes Tort Reform Goals for 2012

Here at MassTortDefense we try to keep at least one eye on important tort reform efforts, and how they may impact  the litigation that we blog about.

That is why we reviewed with great interest the tort reform agenda of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for 2012, which happens to be the organization's 100th year representing the business community.

The head of the Chamber recently delivered the organization's annual State of American Business address to its members. In it, he noted the need for significant regulatory and legal reform:

The regulatory avalanche confronting our job creators is unprecedented. The Labor Department has 100 rule-makings in the pipeline. Dodd-Frank requires 447 rules, 63 reports, and 59 studies. The health care law established 159 new agencies, panels, commissions, and regulatory bodies. EPA has some 200 regulations in the works. The Chamber supports necessary, sensible, and forward-looking regulations -- but not proposals that fail to meet that test. The Chamber is also working to modernize the overall regulatory system—including legislation to reform the permitting process and update the Administrative Procedure Act for the first time since the Truman administration. 

The Chamber's Institute for Legal Reform will continue to fight the expansion of excessive litigation that is sucking the vitality out of American businesses.  America’s civil justice system is the world’s most expensive, with a direct cost in 2009 of $248.1 billion, or 1.74% of the U.S. GDP.
The tort cost per person was $808 in 2009, a sevenfold increase from 1950 even when adjusted for inflation. While small businesses are responsible for 64% of all new American jobs, lawsuits cost them $105.4 billion in 2008—money that could be invested in more jobs, higher wages, or better benefits. Two out of three senior executives and litigators at America’s largest employers believe that the litigation environment in a state is likely to impact important business decisions at their companies, including whether to grow jobs or do business in a state.

A key focus for 2012 will be the alarming rise of third-party litigation financing. That’s where outside investors fund lawsuits in exchange for a share of the award or settlement. This can encourage the filing of frivolous claims. It may invite testing questionable claims in court. It probably provides an incentive to unduly prolong cases. And it raises serious ethical questions. Who does the lawyer really represent—his client or the outside financial backers?


 

Upcoming Mass Tort Seminar

We wanted to alert readers to the HarrisMartin’s Mass Tort Litigation Conference, chaired by Judge Marina Corodemus (Ret.). 

It is set for June 4, 2012 - in our home base of Philadelphia, PA, at the Ritz Carlton.

This year's focus is “A Post-Modernistic Deconstruction of a Mass Tort Medical Device Case.”  The agenda follows the anatomy of the mass tort, from shareholder suits, to government investigations; key science issues; MDL and class procedural questions; and a sprinkling of ethics and discovery, through to a panel on settlement.

The conference includes speakers from the judiciary, the government, industry, and the bar.

More info here.

 

State Supreme Court Reverses Dangerous Expansion of Product Liability

The California Supreme Court held last week that the law does not impose liability on manufacturers of equipment used in conjunction with asbestos-containing parts made by others.  See O'Neil v. Crane Co., Cal., No. S177401 (Cal. 1/12/12).
 
Readers may recall that we posted on this case before. The Restatement of Torts (Third): Products Liability says that in the context of a final, finished product that injures a user and which is made up of components from different manufacturers, if a given component is itself defective and the defect causes the harm, then the supplier of that component is of course liable. In addition, the supplier can be liable even if the component by itself is not defective, but only if the seller substantially participates in the integration of the component into the design of the product (and the defect causes the harm). See Restatement 3d, Section 5. In essence, the doctrine holds that an entity supplying a non-defective raw material or a non-defective component part is not strictly liable for defects in the final product over which it had no control. In this respect, the Third Restatement of Torts simply codified the doctrine of various states’ common law.
 
Nevertheless, a split had existed among the lower courts in California about whether to
extend liability for asbestos-related disease beyond the manufacturers of the asbestos insulation, gaskets, and packing to which many ship workers were exposed (and which makers are now bankrupt) to the makers of the products the asbestos was used with (to find a solvent target).  So the state supreme court confronted the limits of a manufacturer’s duty to prevent foreseeable harm related to its product: When is a product manufacturer liable for injuries caused by adjacent products or replacement parts that were made by others and used in conjunction with the defendant’s product?   It held that a product manufacturer may not be held liable in strict liability or negligence for harm caused by another manufacturer’s product unless the defendant’s own product contributed substantially to the harm, or the defendant participated substantially in creating a harmful combined use of the products.
 
Defendants made valves and pumps used in Navy warships. They were sued here for a wrongful death allegedly caused by asbestos released from external insulation and internal gaskets and packing, all of which were made by third parties and added to the pumps and valves post-sale. It is undisputed that defendants never manufactured or sold any of the asbestos-containing materials to which plaintiffs’ decedent was exposed. That is, no evidence was presented that any of the asbestos-containing dust came from a product made by defendants. Neither company manufactured or sold the external insulation or flange gaskets that the repairmen like plaintiff removed. Although the valves and pumps contained internal asbestos-containing gaskets and packing, these original components had been replaced long before plaintiff encountered them years later. There was no evidence that any of these replacement parts were made by defendants.  The Court of Appeal asserted defendants’ products were defectively designed “because they required asbestos packing and insulation.” But this factual assertion was unsupported by the record. The evidence established that the requirement for asbestos derived from military specifications, not from any inherent aspect of defendants’ pump and valve designs

Nevertheless, plaintiff claimed that defendants should be held strictly liable and found negligent because it was foreseeable that workers would be exposed to and harmed by the asbestos in replacement parts and products used in conjunction with their pumps and valves. The Court of Appeals held that the component parts defense applied only to manufacturers of “multi-use or fungible products” designed to be altered and incorporated into another product. It then concluded defendants’ products did not meet these requirements. The Court of Appeal also rejected defendants’ argument that they could not be found strictly liable because they did not manufacture or supply the asbestos-containing products that caused plaintiffs' disease. The lower court announced a broad definition of strict products liability: a manufacturer is liable in strict liability for the dangerous components of its products, and for dangerous products with which its product will necessarily be used. Even though it was replacement gaskets and packing that allegedly caused disease, the lower appeals court concluded these replacement parts were “no different” from the asbestos-containing components originally included in defendants’ products.
 

Plaintiff's claims would represent an unprecedented expansion of strict products liability, which the supreme court declined to do.  California law, like most states, has long provided that manufacturers, distributors, and retailers have a duty to see to the safety of their products, and will be held strictly liable for injuries caused by a defect in their products. Yet, the state has never held that these responsibilities extend to preventing injuries caused by other products that might foreseeably be used in conjunction with a defendant’s product. Nor has the state's high court ever held that manufacturers must warn about potential hazards in replacement parts made by others when, as here, the dangerous feature of these parts was not integral to the product’s design.  From the outset, strict products liability in California has always been premised on harm caused by deficiencies in the defendant’s own product.  The reach of strict liability is not limitless; strict liability does not extend to harm from entirely distinct products that the consumer can be expected to use with, or in, the defendant’s non-defective product. Instead, the courts require proof that the plaintiff suffered injury caused by a defect in the defendant’s own product.
 
In this case, it was undisputed that plaintiff was exposed to no asbestos from a product made by the defendants. Although he was allegedly exposed to potentially high levels of asbestos dust released from insulation the Navy had applied to the exterior of the pumps and valves, defendants did not manufacture or sell this external insulation. They did not mandate or advise that it be used with their products. It is fundamental that the imposition of liability requires a showing that the plaintiff’s injuries were caused by an act of the defendant or an instrumentality under the defendant’s control.
 
Generally speaking, manufacturers have a duty to warn consumers about the hazards inherent in their products. The requirement’s purpose is to inform consumers about a product’s hazards and faults of which they are unaware, so that they can refrain from using the product altogether or evade the danger by careful use. Typically, under California law, manufacturers are strictly liable for injuries caused by their failure to warn of dangers that were known to the scientific community at the time they manufactured and distributed their product. The supreme court has never held that a manufacturer’s duty to warn extends to hazards arising exclusively from other manufacturers’ products. Plaintiff's alleged exposure to asbestos came from replacement gaskets and packing and external insulation added to defendants’ products long after their installation; there was no dispute that these external and replacement products were made by other manufacturers.
 
So the supreme court reaffirmed that a product manufacturer generally may not be held strictly liable for harm caused by another manufacturer’s product. The only exceptions to this rule arise when the defendant bears some direct responsibility for the harm, either because the defendant’s own product contributed substantially to the harm or because the defendant participated substantially in creating a harmful combined use of the products.   Plaintiffs sought to expand these exceptions to make manufacturers strictly liable when it is foreseeable that their products will be used in conjunction with defective products or even replacement parts made or sold by someone else. However, the mere foreseeability of harm, standing alone, is not a sufficient basis for imposing strict liability on the manufacturer of a non-defective product, or one whose arguably defective product does not actually cause harm.
 
The decision was supported by common sense. A manufacturer cannot be expected to exert pressure on other manufacturers to make their products safe and is not able to share the costs of ensuring product safety with these other manufacturers. It would be unfair to require  manufacturers of non-defective products to shoulder a burden of liability when they derived no economic benefit from the sale of the products that injured the plaintiff.  And a contrary rule would require manufacturers to investigate the potential risks of all other products and replacement parts that might foreseeably be used with their own product and warn about all of these risks. Such a duty would impose an excessive and unrealistic burden on manufacturers. Such an expanded duty could also undermine consumer safety by inundating users with excessive warnings. “To warn of all potential dangers would warn of nothing.”
 
 
 
 

 

Ninth Circuit Decertifies Consumer Fraud Class

The Ninth Circuit last week reversed the certification of a nationwide class raising consumer fraud claims against an auto maker. See Mazza, et al. v. American Honda Motor Co., No. 09-55376 (9th Circuit). 

Honda appealed the district court’s decision to certify a nationwide class of all consumers who purchased or leased Acura RL's equipped with a Collision Mitigation Braking System (“CMBS”). The plaintiffs alleged that certain advertisements misrepresented the characteristics of the CMBS and supposedly omitted material information on its limitations. The complaint stated four claims under California Law, specifically the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq., False Advertising Law (FAL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 et seq., the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Cal. Civil Code § 1750 et seq., and a claim for unjust enrichment.  Readers know those are the typical claims in a consumer fraud case in the popular forum of California.

The Ninth Circuit held that the district court erred because it erroneously concluded that California law could be applied to the entire nationwide class, and because it erroneously concluded that all consumers who purchased or leased the relevant Acura RL can be presumed to have relied on defendant’s advertisements, which allegedly were misleading and omitted material information.

In 2007, plaintiffs bought Acura RL's from authorized Acura dealerships, and the vehicles were equipped with the CMB System. In December 2007, they filed a class action complaint alleging
that Honda misrepresented and concealed material information in connection with the marketing and sale of Acura RL vehicles equipped with the CMBS. According to Plaintiffs, Honda did not warn consumers (1) that its CMB collision avoidance system’s three separate stages may "overlap,"  (2) that the system may not warn drivers in time to avoid an accident, and (3) that it allegedly shuts off in bad weather.

The district court certified a nationwide class of people in the United States who, between August 17, 2005 and the date of class certification, purchased or leased new or used Acura RL vehicles
equipped with the CMBS. The district court concluded that California law could be applied to all class members because Honda did not show how the differences in the laws of the various states were material, how other states might have an interest in applying their laws in this case, and how these interests were implicated in this litigation. It also held that class members were entitled to an
inference of reliance under California law.

Before certifying a class, the trial court must conduct a rigorous analysis to determine whether the party seeking certification has met the prerequisites of Rule 23.  The party seeking class certification has the burden of affirmatively demonstrating that the class meets the requirements
of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. And, under Rule 23(b)(3), a plaintiff must demonstrate the
superiority of maintaining a class action and show that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.  Here, Honda contended that common issues of law did not predominate because California’s consumer protection statutes may not be applied to a nationwide class with members in 44 jurisdictions.
It further contended that common issues of fact did not predominate because the court  impermissibly relied on presumptions that all class members were exposed to the allegedly
misleading advertising, that they relied on misleading information in making their purchasing decision, and that they were damaged as a result.

First, choice of law. Under California’s choice of law rules, the class action proponent bears the initial burden to show that California has significant contact to the claims of each class member. Also, California law may only be used on a class-wide basis if the interests of other states are not found to outweigh California’s interest in having its law applied.  Honda argued that the district court misapplied the three-step governmental interest test.  The Ninth Circuit agreed. The district court abused its discretion in certifying a class under California law that contained class members
who purchased or leased their car in different jurisdictions with materially different consumer protection laws.  For example, some state consumer fraud laws have no scienter requirement, whereas many other states’ consumer protection statutes do require scienter. See, e.g., Colo.
Rev. Stat. 6-1-105(1)(e), (g), (u) (knowingly); N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:8-2 (knowledge and intent for omissions); Debbs v. Chrysler Corp., 810 A.2d 137, 155 (Pa. Super. 2002) (knowledge
or reckless disregard).  Some states require named class plaintiffs to demonstrate reliance, while some other states’ consumer protection statutes do not.  These differences are "not trivial or wholly immaterial."  

The court of appeals reminds us that consumer protection laws are a creature of the state in which they are fashioned. They may impose or not impose liability depending on policy choices made by state legislatures. Each state has an interest in setting the appropriate level of liability for companies conducting business within its territory.  Maximizing consumer and business welfare, and achieving the correct balance for society, does not inexorably favor greater consumer protection; instead, setting a baseline of corporate liability for consumer harm requires balancing these competing interests.  Getting the optimal balance between protecting consumers and attracting foreign businesses, with resulting increase in commerce and jobs, is not so much a policy decision committed to a federal appellate court, or to particular district courts where a plaintiff may sue, as it is a decision properly to be made by the legislatures and courts of each state. More expansive consumer protection measures may mean more or greater commercial liability, which in turn may result in higher prices for consumers or a decrease in product availability.  Here, the district court did not adequately recognize that each foreign state has an interest in applying its law to transactions within its borders and that, if California law were applied to the entire class, foreign states would be impaired in their ability to calibrate liability to foster commerce.

The court of appeals also found that the district court abused its discretion in finding that common issues of fact predominated, because the scale of the advertising campaign here did not support a presumption of reliance, even if one were legally available.  It was likely that many class members were never exposed to the allegedly misleading advertisements, insofar as advertising of the challenged system was very limited. And it was not dispositive that Honda’s advertisements were allegedly misleading because of the information they omitted, rather than the information they claimed.  For everyone in the class to have been exposed to the omissions, it was necessary for everyone in the class to have viewed the allegedly misleading advertising. Here the limited scope of that advertising makes it unreasonable to assume that all class members viewed it.
Honda’s product brochures and TV commercials fell short of the extensive and long-term fraudulent advertising campaign that might support a presumption in the eyes of some courts.  Even if Honda allegedly might have been more elaborate and diligent in disclosing the limitations of the CMB system, its advertising materials did not deny that limitations exist. A presumption of reliance does not arise when class members were exposed to quite disparate information from various representatives of the defendant.  California courts have not allowed a consumer who was never exposed to an alleged false or misleading advertising campaign to recover damages under California’s UCL.  

Another Federal Court Weighs In On Meaning of Nicastro

We have tried to keep an eye out for lower court cases interpreting the Supreme Court decision in J. McIntyre Machinery Ltd. v. Nicastro, as the lower courts parse through plurality, concurring and dissenting views on the exercise of personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants -- with mixed results.   Now comes another decision weighing in on what standard should be applied to the proposed  exercise of personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants. Smith v. Teledyne Continental Motors Inc., No. 9:10-cv-02152 (D.S.C., 1/3/12).
 

In 2010, a vacationer was jogging on the beach at Hilton Head, South Carolina, when he was struck and killed -- by an airplane.  The plane, operated by Smith, was a single-engine aircraft
Smith had made from a kit. As he was flying the plane up the Atlantic coast about ten miles offshore, the propeller fell off the plane and into the sea. Smith attempted to make the Hilton Head airport, but came up short, crash landing on the beach and fatally striking the 38-year-old stockbroker who left behind his wife and two small children, according to the opinion.

The widow sued the pilot, the manufacturer of the airplane’s engine, the manufacturer of the airframe, a company which had serviced the plane prior to the crash; and the manufacturer of the propeller. Smith, the pilot, also sued the manufacturers. The cases were then consolidated, and eventually Teledyne, the engine maker, and a citizen of Delaware and Alabama, challenged personal jurisdiction in South Carolina.

The district court held that jurisdiction was proper.  This case did not involve the general jurisdiction that arises from pervasive contacts with a forum, but specific jurisdiction based on Teledynes' alleged contacts and purposeful availment of the forum.  And when one looks at the facts described, the conclusion may not come as a great surprise: Over the past ten years,
Teledyne sold at least 400 engines directly to South Carolina purchasers at a cost of about $40,000 apiece for a total revenue of approximately $1,600,000. Further, its engines were installed in approximately one-third of general aviation aircraft based in South Carolina. It maintained a continuous relationship with the owners of these engines through its warranty programs. Further, it advertised in South Carolina through aviation magazines. It maintained a distributor there until 2004. It directly sold parts for its engines in the forum state through interactive websites. Significantly, Teledyne maintained ongoing relationships with at least eleven “fixed base operators” --  stores/service centers located at South Carolina airports.  Teledyne had a contract with each FBO which required them to display Teledyne’s logos and actively promote the sale of its products. Teledyne maintained a continuing interactive Internet relationship with these FBOs, through which it provides them with technical support in repairing Teledyne products. Teledyne warranty work must be performed by these FBOs. Teledyne both buys and sells products over the Internet and through retailers to South Carolina residents. It admitted it had derived over $1 million in revenue from its sales to South Carolina residents over the past 10 years.  

This certainly was NOT the most narrow list of contacts we have seen litigated.  What was more intriguing about the opinion was the test the court adopted. The court concluded that the recent decision of the Supreme Court in J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 131 S. Ct. 2780 (2011), and existing Fourth Circuit precedents were dispositive of the issue at bar.  The court observed that the decision was "somewhat difficult to interpret because no single opinion was adopted by a majority of the Justices. Rather, there are three opinions which must be synthesized."  But rather than, as some courts have done, looked for the grounds upon which the concurring justices agreed with the plurality, this court saw as the “common denominator of the Court’s
reasoning,” a "position approved by at least five Justices who support the judgment” -- the “stream-of-commerce plus” rubric previously enunciated in an opinion by Justice O’Connor in Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102, 112 (1987). This view has come to be known as the “stream-of-commerce plus” test. Although it did not win the support of a majority of the Court in Asahi, or since, in the view of this court, it has now done so. 

In his concurring opinion, Justice Breyer rejected the notion that a non-resident defendant could be subjected to suit in a state based solely on foreseeability, agreeing with the plurality that personal jurisdiction required purposeful availment of a particular forum. He further explained that the standard of purposeful availment, the correct legal standard, may still require further explication in the context of modern global commerce, but that the facts of that case did not present an adequate vehicle for crafting any new rules. Although the concurrence and the plurality differed as to what might constitute “purposeful availment” in the context of national or global marketing, they both firmly embraced the continuing significance of individual state sovereignty and, on that basis, noted that specific jurisdiction must arise from a defendant’s deliberate connection with the forum state.  

Here, the court saw more overlap with the dissent. When the concurring Justices expressed the view that the case could be resolved by existing precedents, this meant Justice O’Connor’s opinion in Asahi, according to this district court.   

The court read the Fourth Circuit precedents as having already adopted this view and, therefore, the long-arm cases in the Fourth Circuit were not affected by Nicastro.

In applying this test, the court felt that plaintiffs had enumerated many significant contacts by which Teledyne targeted or purposefully directed commercial activities at South Carolina, as noted above.  Regarding whether the exercise of jurisdiction based on those minimum contacts would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, the court decided that the additional burden on the defendant was relatively slight as compared to the cost of litigating the matter in its home state because Teledyne had a national presence and organization. The interests of the forum state were extremely strong, in that South Carolina, located on a major coastal air corridor, had a compelling interest in protecting its citizens and visitors and their property from damage from falling airplanes.  

Motion denied, case to proceed in South Carolina.

New Law Takes Effect Regarding Venue, Removal

For all the litigators out there, a reminder that The Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2011, H.R. 394, P.L. 112-63. took effect last week.  The act amends the federal jurisdictional statutes regarding diversity jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1332), venue (28 U.S.C. §§ 1390-92, 1404), and removal (28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1446, 1454).  Legislative history here.

Among its provision, the new act states that, with respect to diversity, the district courts shall not have original jurisdiction of any civil action between citizens of a state, and citizens or subjects of a foreign state who are lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States and are domiciled in the same state.

It modifies the citizenship rules to treat corporations as citizens of any foreign state: (1) by which it has been incorporated, and (2) where it has its principal place of business. It treats insurers as citizens of any foreign state: (1) of which the insured is a citizen, (2) by which the insurer has been incorporated, and (3) where the insurer has its principal place of business.

The law now dictates that, upon removal of any civil action with both removable and non-removable claims, the district court shall sever from the action all non-removable claims and remand them to the state court from which the action was removed.  So no discretion to hold on to such claims.

The law prescribes revised requirements for filing notices of removal, including allowing statements in the notice of the amount in controversy, when it exceeds the necessary amount, if the initial pleading seeks: (1) non-monetary relief; or (2) a money judgment, but where the relevant state practice either does not permit demand for a specific sum or permits recovery of damages in excess of the amount demanded. Removal of the action is proper on the basis of an amount in controversy asserted this way,  if the district court finds, by the preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds the amount required.

Importantly, the law now allows removal of a case based on diversity of citizenship more than one year after commencement of the action if the district court finds that the plaintiff has acted in bad faith in order to prevent a defendant from removing the action.  This deals with a common plaintiff tactic in mass torts, such as the inclusion of a treater simply to defeat diversity. In 1988, Congress amended the statute to prohibit the removal of diversity cases more than one year after their commencement. This change was intended to encourage prompt determination of issues of removal in diversity proceedings, and it sought to avoid the disruption of state court proceedings that might occur when changes in the case made it subject to removal. The change, however, led some plaintiffs to adopt removal-defeating strategies designed to keep the case in state court until after the 1-year deadline passed. In those situations, some courts have viewed the 1-year time limit as `jurisdictional' and therefore an absolute limit on the district court's jurisdiction.

The new venue provision requires the issue of proper venue of any civil action brought in a U.S. district court to be determined without regard to whether the action is local or transitory in nature. It repeals the "local action" rule that any civil action, of a local nature, involving property located in different districts in the same state, may be brought in any of such districts.  It also allows a district court to transfer a civil action to any district or division to which all parties have consented.

Significantly, the act resolves a circuit split regarding the time each defendant in a multi-defendant case has to file a notice of removal. Traditionally, the defendant had 30 days from receipt of the plaintiff’s complaint to file a notice of removal.  But in multi-defendant cases, some courts have adopted the “first-served” rule, under which each defendant in a case had 30 days from the date on which the first defendant was served, while others adopted the “later-served” rule, which gives each defendant a 30-day period to file a notice of removal after that defendant is served.  The new law adopts the latter view (but keeps the unanimity rule.)

Dismissal of Actimmune Proposed Class Action Affirmed

The Ninth Circuit late last month upheld the dismissal of a proposed class action concerning alleged off-label marketing of the drug Actimmune.  In re: Actimmune Marketing Litigation, Nos. 10-17237 and 10-17239 (9th Cir. 12/30/11).

The panel, in an unpublished opinion, affirmed the judgment of the district court “for the reasons set forth in the district court's orders.”  See In re Actimmune Marketing Litig., 614 F.Supp.2d 1037
(N.D. Cal. 2009) (Actimmune I); In re Actimmune Marketing Litig., 2009 WL 3740648 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2009)(Actimmune II ); In re Actimmune Marketing Litig., 2010 WL 3463491 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2010) (Actimmune III).

In September 2010, the trial court had issued a ruling dismissing the amended complaints filed by consumers and an insurer, who alleged that defendants had improperly marketed Actimmune as a treatment for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.  Despite the additional allegations included in plaintiffs' latest amended pleadings, plaintiffs still failed to properly allege that defendants' conduct caused plaintiffs' injuries. Therefore, plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue their off-label marketing claims under the asserted consumer fraud claims.  Establishing that a defendant violated a law only accomplishes part of a plaintiff's burden; plaintiffs were also required to prove that they were injured “as a result of” defendants' alleged law-violating conduct.

In the context of the instant case, the “as a result of” language placed the burden on plaintiffs to establish that they actually relied upon the representations delivered through defendants' off-label marketing. Plaintiffs failed to allege a plausible causal chain of injury as required by Iqbal/Twombly.

The shortcoming in the consumer plaintiffs' pleadings was simple: all of the consumer plaintiffs failed to allege that their doctors believed that Actimmune was an effective treatment for IPF “as a result of” defendants' off-label promotion of Actimmune. With respect to each plaintiff, the complaint alleged only that their doctors were “exposed to at least some of InterMune's unfair and unlawful off-label marketing.”  That was not enough;  claims dismissed.

Huge Asbestos Verdict Vacated After Judge Recusal

A Mississippi state court late last month vacated the huge $322 million jury verdict in an asbestos case against Union Carbide Corp. See Union Carbide Corp. et al. v. Brown, No. 2006-196(Circuit Court of Smith County, Ms. 12/27/11).

The asbestos lawsuit in Smith County was filed by plaintiff Thomas Brown Jr., who alleged he worked in the state’s oil fields from 1979 to the mid-1980s and was diagnosed with asbestosis. He claimed that he had been exposed to asbestos when mixing drilling products manufactured by Union Carbide.

A state court jury found the defendants liable under defective design and failure to warn claims, awarding $22 million in compensatory damages and $300 million in punitives, probably the largest asbestos verdict for a single plaintiff in the history of the grandfather of mass torts. Later, the state Supreme Court disqualified the trial judge after information surfaced that the judge's parents had brought asbestos lawsuits.

As profiled by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for Legal Reform, the new judge appointed to handle the matter granted the defendant's motions to set aside the verdict.  Plaintiff's counsel had argued that the recusal didn’t justify throwing out the verdict.

 

MDL Status Denied in Beverage Litigation

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation declined to consolidate the suits brought by plaintiffs attacking the marketing of beverages as “all natural” even though they allegedly contained a preservative. In re Skinnygirl Margarita Beverage Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, No. 2306 (JPML 12/14/11).

The central allegation was that Skinnygirl Margarita beverage was marketed as being all natural
despite some level of sodium benzoate. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, plaintiffs sought  centralization of actions pending in six districts. Plaintiffs sought centralization in the Central District of California or, in the alternative, the District of New Jersey. 

The Panel was not persuaded that Section 1407 centralization was necessary for the convenience of the parties and witnesses or for the just and efficient conduct of this litigation at this time, even if these putative nationwide class actions may share some factual questions regarding the defendants’ alleged marketing. It appeared that the common, material disputed facts may be limited in number. In addition, centralization would not prevent either conflicting or multiple rulings, because plaintiffs brought their claims under the laws of different states. Under some state laws, for example, the state of mind or reliance by individual purchasers may be a critical factor; in others it may not. These issues would not thus involve common discovery.

Finally, that all defendants uniformly opposed centralization was a factor which is quite influential where other factors do not strongly favor centralization. 

The order cited to the precedents that earlier this year, the Panel denied centralization in MDL No. 2248 – In re: Nutella Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation even though the common defendant, and eventually all plaintiffs, supported centralization. See In re Nutella Mktg. and Sales Practices Litig., 2011 WL 3648485, (J.P.M.L. Aug. 16, 2011). Similarly, the Panel denied centralization in MDL No. 2026 – In re: AriZona Beverage Co. Products Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation. The Panel found that the factual questions surrounding whether the defendants deceptively marketed their beverage products as being all natural when those beverages contain high fructose corn syrup did not appear to be sufficiently complex or numerous to warrant centralization. See In re AriZona Beverage Co. Products Mktg. and Sales Practices Litig., 609 F. Supp. 2d 1369 (J.P.M.L. 2009). A similar outcome was  deemed  appropriate here.



 

Laptop Claims Were Mere Puffery

The Ninth Circuit late last month issued an interesting little opinion on the venerable and useful notion of puffing. Vitt v. Apple Computer Inc., No. 10-55941 (9th Cir., 12/21/11).

The crux of plaintiff's contention, building on his dissatisfaction that his iBook G4 allegedly failed shortly after his one year warranty had expired, was that the iBook G4 does not last “at least
a couple of years,” which he alleged was the minimum useful life a reasonable consumer expects from a laptop.  Vitt alleged that this was because one of the solder joints on the logic board of the iBook G4 degraded slightly each time the computer was turned on and off, eventually causing the joint to break and the computer allegedly to stop working -- shortly after Apple’s one year express warranty has expired. Vitt further alleged that Apple affirmatively misrepresented the durability, portability, and quality of the iBook G4, and did not disclose the alleged defect.

The district court held that Apple’s affirmative statements were non-actionable puffery, and that Apple had no duty to disclose the alleged defect , citing Daugherty v. American Honda Motor Co., 144 Cal. App. 4th 824 (2006).

The court of appeals affirmed, for substantially the reasons given by the district court. To be actionable as an affirmative misrepresentation, a statement must make a “specific and  measurable claim, capable of being proved false or of being reasonably interpreted as a statement of objective fact. Coastal Abstract Serv. v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 173 F.3d 725, 731 (9th Cir. 1999). California courts have also held that "mere puffing" cannot support liability under
California consumer protection laws. Vitt challenged Apple’s advertising because it allegedly stated that the iBook G4 was “mobile,” “durable,” “portable,” “rugged,”  “reliable,” “high performance,” “high value,” an “affordable choice,” and an “ideal student laptop.” These statements are generalized, non-actionable puffery because they contain “inherently vague and generalized terms” and were “not factual representations that a given standard has been met.”   

Even when viewed in the advertising context, as Vitt urged, these statements did not claim or imply that the iBook G4’s useful life will extend for at least two years.  For example, to the extent that “durable” is a statement of fact, it may imply in context that the iBook G4 is resistant to problems occurring because of its being bumped or dropped, but not that it will last for a duration beyond its express warranty.

Vitt also contended that Apple had an affirmative duty to disclose the alleged defect. But a  consumer’s only reasonable expectation was that the computer would function properly for the duration of the limited warranty. There is no duty to disclose that a product may fail beyond its warranty period absent an affirmative misrepresentation or a safety risk.  Adopting Vitt’s theory would effectively extend Apple’s term warranty based on subjective consumer expectations. The court of appeals agreed with the district court that Apple was under no duty to disclose the alleged "defect" in its iBook G4s.  Claims dismissed.

  

Class Certification Denied in BPA Litigation

A Missouri federal court last week denied the class certification motion of consumers suing defendants in the multi-district litigation over the use of bisphenol-A in baby bottles and sippy cups. In re: Bisphenol-A Polycarbonate Plastic Products Liability Litigation, No. 4:08-md-01967 (W.D. Mo.).

As we have posted before, the federal judge in the MDL involving BPA in baby bottles refused last Summer to certify three proposed multistate classes in this multidistrict litigation. In re: Bisphenol-A Polycarbonate Plastic Products Liability Litigation, No. 08-1967 (W. D. Mo. July 7, 2011).   That decision offered an interesting discussion of choice of law, and of the notion of commonality after Dukes v. Walmart, and included an important reminder that while individual issues relating to damages do not automatically bar certification, they also are not to be ignored. E.g., In re St. Jude Medical, Inc., 522 F.3d 836, 840-41 (8th Cir. 2008) (individual issues related to appropriate remedy considered in evaluating predominance); Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Ass’n, Inc. v. New Prime, Inc., 339 F.3d 1001, 1012 (8th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 973 (2004) (individual issues related to damages predominated over common issues); see also In re Wilborn, 609 F.3d 748, 755 (5th Cir. 2010).

The court gave plaintiffs an opportunity to show that a class of Missouri-only consumers should be certified, and plaintiffs then moved for certification of three classes of Missouri consumers. Plaintiffs alleged three causes of action: violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA), breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and unjust enrichment.

The court focused first on standing. A court may not certify a class if it contains members who lack
standing. In re Zurn Pex Plumbing Products Liability Litigation, 644 F.3d 604, 616 (8th Cir. 2011). Plaintiffs’ proposed classes here could not be certified because they included individuals who had not suffered an injury-in-fact.  Individuals who knew about BPA’s existence and the surrounding controversy before purchasing defendants’ products had no injury. There was a potential for the proposed classes to include a large number of such uninjured consumers. Plaintiffs admitted that parents often carefully research baby care product purchases, and defendants submitted proof that information regarding BPA was in the media (including popular press such as "20/20") as early as 1999.

The opinion also offers an instructive discussion of reliance. Plaintiffs argued the issue of knowledge goes only to consumers’ reliance on defendants’ alleged nondisclosure, and plaintiffs always contend reliance is not an element of their consumer fraud claims. The court explained that the hypothetical posed by the question of reliance – whether the plaintiff would have purchased the product if she/he had known – presupposes the consumer did not know the relevant information. Thus, the question of knowledge logically precedes the question of reliance.

Even consumers who were unaware of BPA when they purchased defendants’ products may not have suffered an injury. Consumers who fully used defendants’ baby bottles and other products without physical harm before learning about BPA suffered no injury, and could not assert a claim under consumer protection statutes or for breach of warranty. Plaintiffs asserted that none of the proposed class members received what they intended to obtain, because plaintiffs were not provided material information before making their purchases. But plaintiffs were bargaining for baby products at the time of transaction, not for a certain type of information. Those who fully used the products before learning about BPA would have received 100% use (and benefit) from the products.

In the Rule 23 analysis proper, the court also noted that plaintiffs’ proof of what defendants failed to disclose would not be common for all class members, at least with respect to the scientific debate concerning BPA. Class-wide evidence cannot be used to show what defendants knew or should have known because their knowledge and the available information about BPA changed during the
class period. Plaintiffs' proposed trial plan stated they intended to show defendants' alleged awareness and nondisclosure of various scientific studies from 1997 to at least 2006.

The court's observation on materiality is also worth noting. A material fact for state consumer fraud liability includes a fact which a reasonable consumer would likely consider to be important in making a purchasing decision.  Even if this is an objective inquiry, that does not mean it can always be proven with class-wide evidence. A 2006 study allegedly showing BPA's effect on the endocrine systems of snails, even if material, would not be probative of defendants' liability in 2002. Similarly, a reasonable consumer may be less likely to consider a scientific study from 1997 significant if that consumer learned that federal agencies over the years – the FDA in particular – considered that study, and nevertheless still concluded BPA could be safely used to make baby products.

Finally, the court considered superiority and manageability, with a key issue of concern how to determine who was in the class (some courts do this analysis under the ascertainability rubric). Identifying himself or herself as a purchaser would not prove a person is in the class. A plaintiff in a typical case is not allowed to establish an element of a defendant’s liability merely by completing an affidavit swearing the element is satisfied, and this should be no different for a class action.  Defendants would be entitled to cross-examine each and every alleged class member regarding his or her memory and story.

For all these reasons, class certification denied.

Happy New Year!

Warm wishes for a Happy and Prosperous New Year to all our readers!

Tags: