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  See DiMuro v. Clinique Labs, LLC, No. 13-4551 (2d Cir. 7/10/14) (unpublished).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.

Energy Drink Case Subject to Primary Jurisdiction

We have posted before about the important doctrine of primary jurisdiction.  Last week, a defendant obtained dismissal of a proposed class action over its energy drinks under this theory. See Fisher v. Monster Beverage Corp., No. 12-2188 (C.D. Cal. 11/12/13).

Plaintiffs sued individually and as putative class representatives for  allegedly "unfair and deceptive business and trade practices on behalf of anyone who purchased for personal consumption any of the Monster-branded energy drinks sold under the Monster Rehab® brand name and the original Monster Energy®."  Plaintiffs alleged various misrepresentations on the labels of the Original Monster and Rehab Varieties cans, including language that the drink "quenches thirst, hydrates like a sports drink, and brings you back after a hard day's night", that it would "RE-FRESH, RE-HYDRATE, REVIVE," and is "the ideal combo of the right ingredients in the right proportion to deliver the big bad buzz that only Monster can."  Plaintiffs alleged these statements were  misrepresentations because the cans do not hydrate like a sports drink, and allegedly cause dehydration; because "it is not the ideal combo of the right ingredients in the right proportion" and because the statement omits the potential health risks associated with such drinks.  Plaintiffs also alleged claims related to Monster's advertising "strategy."  Plaintiffs alleged that Monster specifically "targets" youth despite the caffeine levels in Monster Drinks.

The court tackled a number of challenges, including standing, preemption (some claims were preempted by the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act), and the absence of particularity in many of the fraud allegations.  But our focus here is on primary jurisdiction.  The primary jurisdiction doctrine allows courts to stay proceedings or to dismiss a complaint without prejudice pending the resolution of an issue within the special competence of an administrative agency; it is most often invoked if a claim involves an issue of first impression or a particularly complicated issue Congress has committed to a regulatory agency.  The courts traditionally weigh four factors in deciding whether to apply the primary jurisdiction doctrine: (1) the need to resolve an issue that (2) has been placed by Congress within the jurisdiction of an administrative body having regulatory authority (3) pursuant to a statute that subjects an industry or activity to a comprehensive regulatory authority that (4) requires expertise or uniformity in administration.  The court determines that an otherwise cognizable claim implicates technical and policy questions that should be addressed in the first instance by the agency with regulatory authority over the relevant industry rather than by the judicial branch.

Defendants argued that the FDA has jurisdiction over issues involving food safety and labeling, and the FDA has specialized expertise in the "technical and policy" questions involved here; the FDA has commenced a science-based evaluation of the safety of caffeine-containing food products, including energy drinks. They also argued that the FDA has primary jurisdiction because the agency has special competence over the matters involving the alleged inadequate warnings and failure to warn issues in this case.  The court agreed that the matters at issue here have been placed by Congress within the jurisdiction of the FDA pursuant to statute and regulations that require the FDA's expertise. The FDA has regulatory authority over food labeling. The FDCA establishes a uniform federal scheme of food regulation to ensure that food is labeled in a manner that does not mislead consumers. Second, plaintiffs' claims ultimately involve "technical and policy claims" about the effects of caffeine and whether Monster should be allowed to advertise and label their products in a way that appeals to a younger demographic. Plaintiffs cited to studies examining the effects of "energy drinks" in general, demonstrating that issues raised in the complaint may affect an entire industry. 

Third, the FDA has taken an interest in investigating and resolving whether energy drinks, including Monster, contain proper levels of caffeine. The FDA's interest in regulating the safety of caffeine weighed in favor of exercising the primary jurisdiction doctrine.  Thus, the Court found that plaintiffs' claims were covered under the Primary  Jurisdiction Doctrine.  

 

 

Federal Court Rejects Fraud Class Action

A federal court stayed a  rejected proposed class action pending the outcome of plaintiffs' petition for interlocutory appeal of the class certification denial.  See Wiedenbeck v. Cinergy Health Inc., No. 12-cv-508-wmc (W.D. Wis., 9/20 class decision; stay 10/15/13).

Readers may be interested in the logic of the denial. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants used false or misleading infomercials to induce the purchase of a medical benefit plan that was deceptively limited, and then acted in bad faith in denying coverage under the plan.  The plaintiffs sought class certification for their fraud claim for a class of for all Wisconsin residents who purchased an insurance policy since Jan. 1, 2007.

Before addressing the specific requirements for class certification, the court discussed various Seventh Circuit precedents, including Thorogood v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 547 F.3d 742 (7th Cir. 2008), in which the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court‟s order certifying a class because common issues of law or fact did not predominate over issues particular to each putative class member's purchase of the defendant's dryer. Thorogood alleged that the words “stainless steel” imprinted on the dryer were deceptive because the dryer drum was not made entirely of stainless steel.  In rejecting plaintiff‟s motion, the Seventh Circuit concluded that a fraud claim necessarily would turn on each class member's understanding of the meaning of the “stainless steel” label, reasoning that at least some portion of the class -- and, based on the court‟s pointed query, “Does anyone believe this besides Mr. Thorogood?”, perhaps all -- would not share the plaintiff‟s understanding of this point-of-sale advertisement. 

The court concluded that this case was arguably even less suited for class treatment than Thorogood.  Plaintiffs relied on different television commercials with different language; moreover, the record demonstrated that given the dates they aired, some class members could not have seen the alleged uniform representations. Defendants used at least 10 different "call scripts" for telemarketing, and transcripts of calls showed each representative responding to specific, individual questions posed by or information received from the customer, meaning the content of actual consumer calls necessary would vary.  There was evidence some consumers received other, material information about the policy at issue, which may have impacted their individual purchase decisions. For example, it is undisputed that purchasers had ten days to cancel the policy from receipt of a member handbook provided post-purchase.  Thus, there was evidence of no common misrepresentation, and no evidence of a common understanding by class members. 

Readers will note the response to plaintiffs' argument that a fraud claim is subject to common proof because the reasonableness of a consumer's reliance (or whether the reliance is justified) is allegedly judged from an “objective” standard. Even if true, an intentional misrepresentation claim under Wisconsin law still requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that he or she actually relied on the false representation (i.e., was misled), which is separate from any inquiry as to whether the reliance was justified or reasonable. And for this element, plaintiffs provided no basis for proving reliance or causation on a class-wide basis.  The courts have repeatedly rejected attempts to certify a class where a fraud claim turns on an individual's understanding in order to demonstrate causation or reliance.  Accordingly, plaintiffs could not meet the commonality prong of Rule 23. 

Final point worth noting, the court also declined to certify a single issue class. There was no common representation, so there really was no single issue as asserted by plaintiffs.

 

Consumer Fraud Class Action Decertified in Drug Case

A state appeals court last week de-certified a class action by consumers over alleged misrepresentations in marketing a drug.  See Merck & Co. v. Ratliff, No. 2011-000234 (Ky. Ct. App.,  2/10/12).

The case involved the drug Vioxx, which was a highly effective medication formerly in widespread use for patients with arthritis and other conditions causing chronic or acute pain.  Plaintiff was a former user of Vioxx for his chronic osteoarthritis.  Although Ratliff’s insurance paid for most of the cost of the drug, which was at the time approximately $66 per month, Ratliff contributed about $5 each month out of pocket.  Ratliff discontinued using Vioxx in early 2004.

Plaintiff brought a putative class action on behalf of product users who had not suffered cardio-vascular side effects, alleging that the defendant deceived the members of the proposed class in violation of the state Consumer Protection Act by promoting and/or allowing the sale of Vioxx with the use of unfair, false, misleading or deceptive acts or practices.  As a result, the class purchased the drug when it wouldn't have otherwise.

The case followed a twisting path, to federal court, to the MDL, back to state court, up to the state supreme court on mandamus, and back.  Long story short, the class was certified by the trial court, and that decision eventually became ripe for review by the court of appeals.

The Kentucky rules are similar to the federal class action rules. The trial court certified the class under the prong (like b3) requiring that the questions of law or fact common to members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action
is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. The trial court found that common questions of law and fact did predominate, stating that there was a common nucleus of facts from which the potential plaintiffs’ claims arose. All of the potential
plaintiffs were prescribed Vioxx by doctors who supposedly relied on Merck’s assertions that it was safe and effective.

On appeal, Merck contended that plaintiff’s claims would require individualized proof such that common questions would not predominate. Merck argued that individual proof would be necessary to show that Merck made fraudulent or negligent misrepresentations toward each putative class member or his or her physician through the marketing and sale of Vioxx, that the alleged
misrepresentations were received by each putative member’s physician, that each putative member’s physician relied on such representations in his or her decision to prescribe Vioxx over another drug, and the amount of any damages suffered by each putative member.

The court of appeals noted that the common law misrepresentation claims would require proof of causation in the nature of reliance, and while "there are fewer obstacles to a class claim proceeding under the" state consumer protection act, that law still requires loss as a result of the wrongful act. Plaintiffs alleged that there was supposedly a consistent pattern of deception lasting essentially the entire time that Vioxx was on the market, and thus that generalized proof could be used to show the elements of fraud and misrepresentation in this case. This theory concerning generalized proof regarding Merck’s alleged conduct was similar to the rebuttable presumption of reliance and causation known in securities litigation as "fraud-on-the-market." The court of appeals noted that the “fraud-on-the-market” approach had never been recognized in the state for a fraud or misrepresentation case. Indeed, pretty much every other jurisdiction which has been confronted with the theory has rejected it outside of the securities litigation context. See, e.g., Kaufman v. i-Stat Corp, 754 A.2d 1188, 1191 (N.J. 2000); International Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 68 Welfare Fund v. Merck & Co., Inc, 929 A.2d 1076, 1088 (N.J. 2007); Mirkin v. Wasserman, 858 P.2d 568, 584-95 (CA. 1993); Southeast Laborers Health and Welfare Fund v. Bayer Corp., 2011 WL 5061645 (11th Cir. 2011); Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs’ Legal Committee, 531 U.S. 341 (2001).

Accordingly, causation, reliance, and damages must be shown on an individual basis. Thus, if the action were tried as a class, even after the alleged common questions of Merck’s representations were decided, the case would essentially fragment into a series of amalgamated “mini-trials” on each of these individualized questions. Because these individualized questions would substantially overtake the litigation, and would override any common questions of law or fact concerning defendant’s alleged conduct, the court found that a class action was not the superior mechanism by which to try these cases. See, e.g., Zinser v. Accufix Research Institute, Inc., 253 F.3d 1180, 1192 (9th Cir. 2001).

 

 

Class Action Complaint on 100% Natural Oil Dismissed

A federal court recently dismissed a proposed class action accusing a food company of misleadingly labeling cooking oils as 100% natural when they allegedly were made from genetically modified plants. Robert Briseno, et al. v. ConAgra Foods Inc., No. 2:11-cv-05379 (C.D. Calif.).

Quick research reveals that 88-94% of the nation’s crops of corn, soy and canola are grown from seeds that are the product of bioengineering.  There is no credible science that there are serious health issues with these products, and multiple peer reviewed studies on "GM" crops worldwide show farmers in underdeveloped countries have seen an increase in yield of about 29% from using them, along with decreased use of insecticide applications.

Plaintiff alleged that he regularly purchased Wesson Canola Oil, bearing labels that state the product is “100% Natural.” Plaintiff contended that contrary to these representations, ConAgra used plants grown from genetically modified organism seeds that have been engineered to allow for greater yield, and to be pest-resistant, to make Wesson-branded oils. He asserted that the genetically modified organisms are somehow not “100% natural,” and thus the labels and advertising are deceptive. Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking to represent a class of all persons in the United States who have purchased Wesson Oils from 2007 on. As is typical, he alleged
violation of California’s false advertising law (“FAL”), California’s unfair competition law (“UCL”), and California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”).

Defendant moved to dismiss. The first issue was preemption of the state law causes of action, based on FDA guidance regarding food labels. Federal preemption occurs, generally, when: (1) Congress enacts a statute that explicitly pre-empts state law; (2) state law actually conflicts with federal law; or (3) federal law occupies a legislative field to such an extent that it is reasonable to conclude that Congress left no room for state regulation in that field. Specifically, ConAgra argued that Briseno’s claims were preempted because the FDA has repeatedly concluded that bioengineered foods are not meaningfully different from foods developed by traditional plant breeding, and thus that the fact that a food product is derived from bioengineered plants need not be reflected on a product’s label. Plaintiff responded that he was not arguing that ConAgra was required to state whether its products were made from genetically modified plants. Rather, he contended that the decision to label its products “100% Natural” was misleading.

Courts have split on food preemption issues. Compare Dvora v. General Mills, Inc., 2011 WL 1897349 (C.D. Cal. May 16, 2011)(cereal-yes); Turek v. General Mills, Inc., 754 F.Supp.2d 956 (N.D. Ill. 2010)(snack bars-yes); Yumul v. Smart Balance, Inc., 2011 WL 1045555 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2011)(yes), with Lockwood v. Conagra Foods, Inc., 597 F.Supp.2d 1028 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2009)(pasta-no); Wright v. General Mills, Inc., 2009 WL 3247148 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2009)(granola bars-no).

Here, the court found no preemption on most of the complaint. The bulk of the complaint, said the court, alleged that use of the phrase “100% Natural” is misleading, and did not contend that additional information must be added to Wesson Oil labels. Regulations requiring that each product list its ingredients by their “common or usual name,” together with the regulations requiring that vegetable oils be denominated “ oil,” were inapplicable since plaintiff’s central argument was not that ConAgra cannot use the common or usual names of canola oil, vegetable oil or corn oil.

The FDA has expressed that it has no basis for concluding that bioengineered foods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way, or that, as a class, foods developed by the new techniques present any different or greater safety concern than foods developed by traditional plant breeding. So, plaintiff, in essence, sought to create a distinction – between “natural” oils and those made from bioengineered plants when the FDA has determined that no such distinction exists. The court rejected this argument, refusing to read the FDA guidance as formal enough or clear enough on the issue.

Plaintiff did also seek an order requiring defendant to adopt and enforce a policy that requires appropriate disclosure of GM ingredients. Entering an order of this type would impose a
requirement that is not identical to federal law, and thus this particular prayer for such relief was preempted.

Rule 9(b) requires that in all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity. The pleading must identify the circumstances constituting fraud so that a defendant can prepare an adequate answer to the allegations. While statements of the time, place and nature of the alleged fraudulent activities are often sufficient, mere conclusory allegations of fraud are insufficient. Even if fraud is not a necessary element of a claim under the CLRA and UCL, when a plaintiff alleges fraudulent conduct then the claim can be said to be grounded in fraud or to sound in fraud.

Plaintiff alleged that he regularly purchased Wesson Canola Oil for his own and his family’s consumption. But his complaint contained no allegations as to whether he became aware of the
representation through advertising, or labeling, or otherwise. He provided no information about how often he was exposed to the allegedly misleading statement. He did not allege how
frequently he purchased the product and over what period of time, whether he relied on
statements on canola oil labels, on a website, in advertisements, or all of the above,
whether the statements remained the same throughout the class period, or, if they did not, on
which label(s), advertisement(s) or statement(s) he relied.

Thus, this complaint did not afford ConAgra adequate opportunity to respond. Consequently, defendant's motion to dismiss was granted (without prejudice).


 

Food Spread Class Action Certified: What Happened to Wal-mart?

A California federal judge recently denied certification of a nationwide class, but certified a statewide class of plaintiffs in a suit over allegedly misleading promotion of the hazelnut spread Nutella as part of a healthy breakfast for kids. Hohenberg et al. v. Ferrero USA Inc., No. 3:11-cv-00205 (S.D. Calif.).

This type of case falls squarely in the zone we have warned readers about: the aggressive and excessive use of consumer fraud act claims by plaintiff attorneys, and certification triggering the need to think about "blackmail settlements."

Plaintiffs brought a putative consumer class action lawsuit on behalf of people who purchased Ferrero’s Nutella spread after relying on allegedly deceptive and misleading labeling and advertisements. Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that Ferrero misleadingly promoted its spread as healthy and beneficial to children when in fact it contains levels of fat and sugar inconsistent with that claim.  We have posted on this product before.

Typically, plaintiffs brought causes of action alleging (1) violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.; (2) violations of California’s False Advertising Law, (“FAL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500 et seq.; (3) violations of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1770 et seq.; (4) breach of express warranty; and (5) breach of implied warranty of merchantability.

Plaintiffs moved for class certification. Defendant Ferrero argued that plaintiffs did not satisfy the commonality requirement as clarified by the United States Supreme Court in Wal-Mart, because they did not offer evidence of a common injury. Indeed, plaintiffs did not support their motion with expert declarations that, for example, all class members were misled by a common advertising campaign that had little to no variation.  But the court, relying in part on pre-Wal-Mart decisions, e.g., Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1019-20 (9th Cir. 1998), stressed that commonality under Rule 23(a)(2) only requires there be some common issues of fact. To the extent that defendant interpreted the decision in Wal–Mart as requiring plaintiffs to prove common class-wide injury at the class certification stage, the court disagreed. Rather, all plaintiffs must show, said the court, is that the claims of the class depend upon a common contention of such a nature that it is capable of class-wide resolution—which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke. While that clearly was part of Wal–Mart, the decision is best read as finding that commonality requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that the class members have suffered the same injury, which means more than merely that they have all suffered a violation of the same provision of law.  Nevertheless, in this case, the court found sufficient the claims made on behalf of the proposed class based on a common advertising campaign,

But then there was the predominance issue of Rule 23(b).  Defendant disputed that common issues predominate, arguing that proposed class members’ injuries would require individualized assessment. Notably, one named plaintiff did not regret buying Nutella despite the alleged marketing, and continued using the spread after she learned about its sugar content. Another named plaintiff testified that her family loved Nutella and was upset when she took it away. Clearly, this case involved class members’ individual expectations, dietary preferences, nutritional knowledge, and the availability or non-availability of substitutes in the market. The court conceded that plaintiffs’ dietary choices may prove relevant to the merits of their case, but felt that it need not "decide the merits" of the case at this stage. However, as we have posted before, the Ninth Circuit has noted that it is not correct to say a district court may consider the merits to the extent that they overlap with class certification issues; rather, a district court must consider the merits if they overlap with the Rule 23(a) requirements. 


The court did reject the proposed national class, because plaintiffs made no showing that non-California class members saw the advertising at issue in California, purchased Nutella in California, or that their claims arise out of conduct that occurred in California. The choice of law issue thus overwhelmed the alleged common issues. So the certified class included “all persons who, on or after Aug. 1, 2009, bought one or more Nutella products in the state of California” for personal use.  Wal-Mart needs to have more impact than this.

"Infected" Tissue Claim Not A Consumer Fraud Claim

Readers have seen my warnings about plaintiff attorneys trying to turn every marketing statement of opinion or puffing into a consumer fraud claim. Now comes a decision about a non-consumer product consumer fraud claim. A federal court recently decided that a plaintiff failed to plead a proper consumer fraud claim against a human tissue product supplier for allegedly providing infected material that was implanted into his body. See Wamsley v. Lifenet Transplant Services Inc., No. 10-00990 (S.D.W. Va., 11/10/11).

Plaintiff sued non-profit corporations who were suppliers and distributors of human tissue products, such as human tendons. Plaintiff alleged that he underwent surgery to repair a rupture to the Achilles tendon in his left ankle, a procedure that involved the implantation of a human tendon obtained from defendants. Plaintiff alleged the product was defective because it was “infected.”  Consequently, plaintiff alleged he had to undergo additional surgeries “to correct the damage caused by the defective tendon.

Plaintiff claimed that supplying an infected tendon constitutes an unfair method of competition and unfair or deceptive act or practice as defined by the West Virginia Consumer Credit Protection Act.  Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that plaintiff had failed to allege any action or inaction on the part of the defendants which would constitute unfair competition, unfair acts or practices, deceptive acts or practices, or fraudulent acts or practices. Plaintiff only formulaically recited the elements of a cause of action under the WVCCPA.   the court agreed and had plaintiff file an amended complaint which alleged defendants concealed from plaintiff, his doctors, and his hospital, that the tendon was infected.  He claimed the alleged concealment
that a tendon provided for human implantation is infected constitutes an unfair method of competition and unfair or deceptive act or practice.
 

Defendants then filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint arguing that plaintiff’s
amended complaint fails to meet the pleading standards articulated in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Defendants further contended that plaintiff did not have a private cause of action under the WVCCPA because no causal connection exists between the alleged unlawful conduct and the alleged ascertainable loss: because a physician (a “learned intermediary”) made the decision as to what product to use to repair the ruptured Achilles tendon, plaintiff could not establish the necessary causal connection between the alleged unlawful practice by defendants and the alleged injury.

The court began by outlining the relevant legal standard, familiar to our readers. The
plausibility standard requires a plaintiff to demonstrate more than a sheer possibility that a
defendant has acted unlawfully;  it requires the plaintiff to articulate facts, when accepted as
true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. While a court must accept the material facts alleged in the complaint as true, bare legal conclusions are not entitled to the assumption of truth and are insufficient to state a claim.  Facts pled that are merely consistent with liability are not sufficient.

Moreover, the court noted in an elegant way, "fraud is a generous tort, encompassing affirmative misrepresentations and omissions alike, its boundaries limited only by the imaginations of crafty and unprincipled minds."  A claim that “sounds in fraud” must satisfy Rule 9(b)’s more rigorous pleading standards. Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading standards advance several interests, including protecting defendants’ reputations from baseless accusations, eliminating unmeritorious suits that are brought only for their nuisance value, discouraging fishing expeditions brought in the dim hope of discovering a fraud, and providing defendants with detailed information in order to enable them to effectively defend against a claim.

Plaintiff’s sole relevant factual allegation concerning defendants’ alleged unlawful conduct was that the defendants concealed from plaintiff, his doctors, and his hospital, that the tendon was infected. But he offered not a single fact in support of his theory that defendants concealed from surgeons the fact that the human tissue they provided was “infected” or knew that the surgeons would implant the diseased tendon into a human body.  (Indeed, the serious nature of this allegation made it more at home in a criminal court than a consumer fraud action.) Such an unadorned, conclusory averment leashed to not a single supporting fact failed to meet the pleading standard. Moreover, Plaintiff’s allegation that defendants concealed a material fact sounds in fraud
and, thus, triggered rigorous pleading requirements under Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b).  However, the court called this a  "shoot-and-ask-questions-later lawsuit"  because it offered no facts to support a good faith belief that defendants knowingly distributed diseased or “infected” human body parts to plaintiff’s health care providers. No names, places, dates, or times, and no concrete facts to support the alleged conduct. No narrative on what was medically deficient about the tendon implant except to state that it was “infected.” In sum, plaintiff’s theory of liability failed to cross the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief. 

Even if the amended complaint had been "the model of perfect pleading," it would still fail because it does not state a cognizable claim under the WVCCPA. Plaintiff cannot shoulder his burden of stating a claim upon which relief can be granted because, within the meaning of the WVCCPA, the provisioning of blood and human tissue by the non-profit defendants to the health care providers was not “trade or commerce”; the service provided by the defendants was not performed “in connection with the sale or advertisement of any goods or services”; plaintiff was not a “consumer”; and the parities had not entered into a “consumer transaction.”

The West Virginia Legislature, in accord with many other jurisdictions, expressed its intent
that suppliers of human blood and tissue products be held to different legal standards than those
businesses that manufacture, distribute, and sell conventional goods and services. Blood and tissue distributors are rendering a service— and not making a sale—when they provide human blood and tissue products according to the West Virginia Legislature, which intended to limit the liability of such distributors in contract warranty and strict liability tort claims, plainly distinguishing human body products from ordinary goods. The court thus applied the West Virginia high court's decision in White v. Wyeth, 705 S.E.2d 828, 837 (W. Va. 2010), which held prescription drugs aren't proper subjects of consumer protection claims; the court refused to allow a plaintiff to morph what is most naturally a product liability or breach of warranty action into a purported statutory consumer protection claim would permit an end-run around the state's blood shield statute.

Finally, the court noted that plaintiff was correct in observing that if his WVCCPA complaint was dismissed, plaintiff would be left with no adequate legal remedy. Defendants had explained that the WVCCPA claim was a products liability claim in disguise, brought only because the statute of limitations had run on plaintiff’s traditional tort remedies. Thus, any difficulty plaintiff might having pursuing more traditional causes of action was likely his own fault.  The legislature did not intend that WVCCPA serve as "a Plan B litigation backstop" for claims when a plaintiff had—but did not pursue—appropriate traditional causes of action.


 

Court Dismisses Consumer Fraud Claims Against iPad

A California federal court last week dismissed a putative class action accusing Apple Inc. of misleading consumers about the ability of its iPad to function outdoors without interruption. Jacob Baltazar et al. v. Apple Inc., No. 3:10-cv-03231 (N.D. Cal. 8/26/11).

We have posted before about the spate of consumer fraud class actions that look for any aspect of a functioning product that can be attacked as less than perfect, and turn it into a nationwide class action.  Here is a good case reminding readers that manufacturers do not warrant perfection, merely that the product will be reasonably fit for ordinary uses and reasonable expectations.

Plaintiffs alleged that Apple had represented that its iPad tablet computers function outdoors without interruption, when in fact the devices allegedly overheat and shut down when used in sunny conditions. Plaintiffs in this consumer class action asserted claims including breach of warranty and fraud.  Apple moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ second amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The court agreed that the complaint failed to allege facts tending to show that Apple ever represented or claimed that the iPad would operate under such conditions, or that members of the putative class justifiably relied on such representations.

Each of the named plaintiffs alleged that he or she chose to purchase an iPad based at least in part on what they characterize as representations by Apple that the iPad could function outdoors as an e-reader and mobile Internet device. They relied, first, on a claim that Apple produced a television commercial showing depictions of the iPad being used outdoors, at least some of the time on sunny days, and posted on its website a video showing scenes of the iPad being used outdoors and in the sun. They also based their claims on a statement made on Apple’s website that reading the iPad is "just like reading a book.” Finally, they asserted that Apple represented expressly, both on the iPad’s packaging and on its website, that the iPad would function normally within a specified ambient temperature range.

While a complaint attacked by Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need overly detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007).

Regarding the ads, while plaintiffs observed correctly that a warranty can be created by statements in advertisements, see e.g., Thomas v. Olin Mathieson Chem. Corp., 255 Cal. App. 2d 806, 811 (1967), they did not point to any cases in which a court found that advertising images alone are sufficient to created an express warranty. On the other hand, courts have rejected warranty claims based on advertising images alone. Moreover, even if the advertisement could be construed as an express warranty, the warranty would be that the iPad would work in the exact situations depicted, not in other situations. Plaintiffs described seven brief scenes in a thirty-
second commercial depicting the iPad in use in “outdoor locations,” some of which uses
allegedly occurred on a “sunny day.” But several of the images were on the screen for less
than a second, and none show the iPad being used in direct sunlight or for an extended period in
any environment. Even under the most liberal pleading standard, these brief clips of iPad use in some outdoor locations cannot be construed as an express warranty that the device will operate without interruption in direct sunlight or in outdoor conditions generally.

On the implied warranty claim,plaintiffs failed to identify with sufficient specificity which of the  functions are the ordinary purpose of the iPad and how the device was unfit for that purpose. The complaint alleged that the iPad was marketed as a mobile tablet computer that can be used “anywhere, whether it be while sitting in a park, at an outdoor café, or on one’s own front stoop.” However, the complaint alleged that the product was unfit for use, generally, presumably everywhere and under all conditions. It failed to allege the device did not meet “a minimum level of quality” for a tablet computer.

On the fraud-based claims, the court noted that to state a claim for fraud or intentional misrepresentation under California law, a plaintiff must allege: (1) misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); 2) knowledge of falsity (or scienter); (3) intent to defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; (4) justifiable reliance; and (5) resulting damage. Lazar v. Superior Ct., 12 Cal.4th 631, 638 (1996); Anderson v. Deloitte & Touche, 56 Cal.App.4th 1486, 1474 (1997).  Plaintiffs failed to allege adequately that Apple misrepresented the conditions under which the iPad would operate or that they justifiably could rely on those representations in believing that the iPad would operate as they expected. For example, none of the named plaintiffs claimed to have relied on Apple’s statement that the iPad can be used “just like a book,” which, the court noted, was mere puffery. 

However, the court gave the plaintiffs 30 days to submit a third amended complaint.

 

Federal Court Dismisses Soda Misrepresentation Claim

A New Jersey federal recently dismissed a putative class action accusing The Coca-Cola Co. of misleading consumers about the health value of the carbonated beverage Diet Coke Plus.  Mason et al. v. The Coca-Cola Co., No. 09-cv-00220 (D.N.J. 3/31/11).

This is another in the series of cases we have warned readers about: plaintiffs are not injured, are not at risk of injury, have gotten the benefit of their bargain, but claim they were somehow duped by marketing. Here, plaintiffs alleged that they “were persuaded to purchase the product because the term ‘Plus’ and the language ‘Diet Coke with Vitamins and Minerals’ suggested to consumers that the product was healthy and contained nutritional value,” when it allegedly did not.

Defendants moved to dismiss under the Twombly/Iqbal doctrine.  Of course, claims alleging fraud or mistake must also meet the heightened pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b), which requires such claims to be pled with “particularity.”

To state a claim under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act., a plaintiff must allege: “(1) unlawful conduct by the defendants; (2) an ascertainable loss on the part of the plaintiff; and (3) a causal relationship between the defendants’ unlawful conduct and the plaintiff’s ascertainable loss.” Frederico v. Home Depot, 507 F.3d 188, 202 (3d Cir. 2007). Plaintiffs claimed that defendant committed affirmative acts of fraud and deception, and that they were persuaded to purchase the product because the term ‘Plus’ and the language ‘Diet Coke with Vitamins and Minerals’ somehow suggested to consumers that the product was healthy and contained extra nutritional value.

However, the FDA's warning letter about the product attached by plaintiffs to their own complaint shows that it is not false that Diet Coke Plus contains vitamins and minerals.  Plaintiffs failed to allege with particularity what further expectations beyond these ingredients they had for the product or how it fell short of those expectations. Plaintiffs simply made a broad assumption that defendant somehow intended for Diet Coke Plus’s vitamin and mineral content to deceive plaintiffs into thinking that the beverage was really “healthy.”  Without more specificity as to how defendant made false or deceptive statements to plaintiffs regarding the healthiness or nutritional value of the soda, the court found that plaintiffs failed to plead the “affirmative act” element with sufficient particularity to state a viable NJCFA claim.

Plaintiffs also failed to plead an ascertainable loss. When plaintiffs purchased Diet Coke Plus, they received a beverage that contained the exact ingredients listed on its label. Plaintiffs could not explain how they experienced any out-of-pocket loss because of their purchases, or that the soda they bought was worth an amount of money less than the soda they consumed. Mere subjective  dissatisfaction with a product is not a quantifiable loss that can be remedied under the NJCFA.  The same defects doomed the common law misrepresentation claims.

Although the FDA had issued the warning letter (on a somewhat arcane and technical issue), the court noted that not every regulatory violation amounts to an act of consumer fraud. The court also noted that it is simply not plausible that consumers would be aware of FDA regulations regarding “nutrient content” and restrictions on the enhancement of snack foods. The complaint actually did not allege that consumers bought the product because they knew of and attributed something meaningful to the regulatory term “Plus” and therefore relied on it. Rather, plaintiffs alleged merely that they subjectively thought they were buying a “healthy” product that happened to also apparently run afoul of a technical FDA regulation.

Summary Judgment in Ignition Lock Class Action

A federal judge has dismissed a class action against Ford Motor Co. over allegedly defective ignition locks. Richard Smith, et al. v. Ford Motor Co., No. 06-00497 (N.D. Calif. 9/13/10).  The case offers an interesting take on the interplay of express warranties and fraud/failure to disclose claims.

Plaintiffs alleged that Ford unlawfully concealed information concerning the failure rate of the ignition locks in its Focus vehicles. An ignition lock is the vehicle part in which the key is inserted and turned to activate the ignition; its purpose is to start the car. When an ignition lock fails, the driver is prevented from turning the key. Following the launch of the Focus, there was a spike in warranty claims related to the ignition locks. In order to counter the relatively high warranty repair rates, Ford and its ignition lock manufacturer made manufacturing and design changes to the subject ignition locks, which resulted in a substantial decrease in the warranty repair rates. Specifically, from a warranty repair rate of 24.3 % for its 2000 model year Focus vehicles, Ford saw the rate drop to 6.9% for its 2001model year vehicles, then drop again to 3.1% for its 2002 model year vehicles.

In their complaint, plaintiffs asserted state law claims against Ford for, inter alia, Unfair and
Deceptive Acts and Practices in Violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et. seq.; and Unfair, Fraudulent, and Unlawful Practices under the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code sections 17200-17209.

Ford moved for summary judgment, arguing that it had no legal duty to disclose the risk that the subject ignition locks would fail, and could stand on its standard three-year, 36,000 mile warranty.

The district court agreed, granting summary judgment.  The court noted first that  under California law, a manufacturer cannot be found liable under the CLRA for failure to disclose a defect that manifests itself after expiration of the warranty period unless such omission (1) is contrary to an express representation actually made by the defendant, or (2) pertains to a fact the defendant was obligated to disclose.  Plaintiffs argued there was an obligation to disclose "material" risks.  But where, as here, a plaintiff’s claim is predicated on a manufacturer’s failure to inform its customers of a product’s likelihood of failing outside the warranty period, the risk posed by such asserted defect cannot be “merely” the cost of the item's repair.  Rather, for the omission to be material, the failure must pose “safety concerns.”  In other words, under California law, a manufacturer’s duty to consumers is limited to its warranty obligations absent either an affirmative misrepresentation or a safety issue. 

Accordingly, because plaintiffs’ CLRA claim here was not based on any misrepresentation made by Ford, but rather was based on an allegation that Ford had a duty to disclose the risk its ignition locks would fail, plaintiffs’ claim, absent evidence of a safety concern, could not succeed. Plaintiffs argued that the ignition lock issue was a substantial "safety concern" because such locks can (1) prevent drivers from starting their vehicles, and (2) prevent drivers from shutting off their vehicles’ engines -- despite the fact that there were no reports that anyone has ever been injured by the failure of an ignition lock.  Plaintiffs hypothesized drivers getting stranded in unsafe locales. Ford argued that the dangers described by plaintiffs were too speculative to amount to a safety issue giving rise to a duty of disclosure.

The court agreed with Ford, noting “security” concerns are distinguishable from “safety” concerns. The dangers envisioned by plaintiffs were speculative in nature, deriving in each instance from the particular location at which the driver initially had parked the vehicle and/or the driver’s individual circumstances. Plaintiffs offered no evidence that the ignition-lock defect causes engines to shut off unexpectedly or causes individuals to stop their vehicles under dangerous conditions.

Similarly, to the extent plaintiffs’ fraudulent concealment claim was based on Ford’s alleged duty to disclose the risk of failure of the subject ignition locks, Ford was entitled to summary judgment on that claim also as there was no duty to disclose a failure rate, post-warranty, for a non-safety issue.  Again, as plaintiffs have failed to show an affirmative duty to disclose the risk of post-warranty failure of the ignition locks, plaintiffs also had not shown that a reasonable customer could have been deceived; as a matter of law, the only reasonable expectation customers could have had about the subject ignition locks was that they would function for the length of Ford’s express warranty. 

Federal Appeals Court Vacates Third Party Payor Class Certification

A federal appeals court last week reversed an order by a district court certifying a class action of insurers, labor unions, and pension funds who alleged that they overpaid for a drug when the manufacturer allegedly didn't reveal all of the drug's adverse side effects. UFCW Local 1776, et al. v. Eli Lilly & Co., No. 09-0222 (2d Cir. 9/10/10).

Plaintiffs acted as third-party payors (TPP) who underwrite the purchase of prescription drugs by their members or insureds; they brought a putative class action against Eli Lilly, manufacturer of the drug Zyprexa, alleging that Lilly had misrepresented Zyprexa’s efficacy and side effects to physicians. The putative class alleged they paid for the many Zyprexa prescriptions. Plaintiffs argued that they were injured in two ways: first, by paying for Zyprexa prescriptions that would not have been issued but for the alleged misrepresentations; and second, by paying a higher price for Zyprexa than would have been charged, absent the alleged misrepresentations.

In a nearly 300-page opinion issued in  2008, Judge Jack Weinstein of the Eastern District of New York granted class certification to the third-party payors. Specifically, the district court certified a class of TPPs on RICO claims predicated on the overpricing theory of damages, but refused to certify a class related to state consumer protection law claims. The lower court concluded that the proposed TPP class presented common questions of law and fact because the “only difference among class third-party payors is how much of the total overcharge each shall receive in damages.” The lower court  had  addressed whether the losses suffered by the class could be established with sufficient precision, a huge issue in these kinds of cases, concluding that damages could be estimated based on the difference between what was paid for Zyprexa and the actual value of the product. The computation would supposedly require: (i) estimating the total out-of-pocket expenditures for the class members and (ii) using "well-accepted  techniques" in applied economics to determine the actual value or appropriate launch price of Zyprexa.

The district court also found that reliance could be proven for the class simply because the alleged fraud was “directed through mailings and otherwise at doctors who relied, causing damages in overpayments by plaintiffs.” This reliance, the district court concluded, could appropriately be shown by generalized proof, but without resort to the “fraud on the market” theory rejected in cases like McLaughlin v. Am. Tobacco Co., 522 F.3d 215 (2d Cir. 2008).

Defendant appealed.  The Second Circuit noted that to determine whether the proposed TPP class was properly certified, it had to consider whether substantial elements of the claim against Lilly may be established by generalized, rather than individualized, proof.  (Predominance of common or individual issues under Rule 23(b) was the focus.)  Even if the issue whether an act of marketing of the drug was in violation of RICO is considered common, Lilly disputed that the other elements required to recover damages – proof of an injury and proof that such injury was by reason of the RICO violation – were common to the proposed class.  To show injury by reason of a RICO violation, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the violation caused his injury in two senses. First, he must show that the RICO violation was the proximate cause of his injury, meaning there was a direct relationship between the plaintiff’s injury and the defendant’s injurious conduct. Second, he must show that the RICO violation was the but-for (or transactional) cause of his injury, meaning that but for the RICO violation, he would not have been injured.

Traditionally, to show causation in a fraud context, reliance needed to be shown. But in Bridge v.
Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co
., 128 S. Ct. 2131, 2134 (2008), the Court lessened the emphasis on traditional reliance as an element of the RICO fraud claim to show causation in some cases.  But how a plaintiff can or must prove causation is bound up in what the factual claim is. The Bridge Court also said that in “most cases, the plaintiff will not be able to establish even but-for causation if no one relied on the misrepresentation.” 128 S.Ct. at 2144.  Here, while reliance may not be an element of the cause of action, there was no question that the plaintiffs alleged, and thus had to prove, third-party reliance as part of their factual chain of causation.  Plaintiffs alleged an injury that was caused by physicians relying on Lilly’s supposed misrepresentations and prescribing Zyprexa accordingly. Because reliance was a necessary part of the factual causation theory advanced by the plaintiffs, they had to show it to prevail, and show it by generalized proof if they wished to proceed in a class action.

The court of appeals concluded that plaintiffs’ excess price theory was not susceptible to generalized proof with respect to either but-for or proximate causation, and therefore class certification based on this theory was an abuse of discretion.

The evidence in the record made clear that prescribing doctors do not generally consider the price of a medication when deciding what to prescribe for an individual patient. Any reliance by doctors on alleged misrepresentations as to the efficacy and side effects of a drug, therefore, was not a but-for cause of the price that TPPs ultimately paid for each prescription.  Moreover, the TPP plaintiffs, who unlike the doctors were in a position to negotiate the prices of drugs in their formularies, were unable to show proximate causation.  The TPP plaintiffs drew an alleged chain of causation in which Lilly distributed misinformation about Zyprexa, physicians relied upon that misinformation and prescribed Zyprexa for their patients, and then the TPPs overpaid.  But this narrative skipped several crucial steps: after the doctors prescribe the drug, TPPs relying on the advice of Pharmacy Benefit Managers and their Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committees, placed Zyprexa on their formularies as approved drugs, and then TPPs failed to negotiate the price of Zyprexa below the level set by Lilly.  Thus, in this case, the conduct directly causing the harm was distinct from the conduct giving rise to the fraud. The plaintiff TPPs could not and did not allege that they themselves relied on Lilly’s alleged misrepresentations. But because only the TPPs were in a position to negotiate the price paid for Zyprexa, the only factual reliance that might show proximate causation with respect to price was reliance by the TPPs, not reliance by the doctors.

Since plaintiffs could not show the entire factual causal chain by generalized proof, individual issues would abound, and class certification was improper. The court of appeals also remanded for reconsideration of defendant's summary judgment motion in light of its ruling.

 

Proposed CFA Class Action on Bath Products Is Dismissed

A federal court has dismissed a putative class action accusing Johnson & Johnson Consumer Co. Inc., L'Oreal USA Inc., Kimberly-Clark Corp., and other defendants, of selling children's bath products that contain toxic and carcinogenic substances. See Herrington v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Co. Inc., et al., No. 09-cv-01597 (N.D. Calif. 9/1/10).

Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that the defendants failed to disclose that their products contain probable carcinogens, other unsafe contaminants, and/or ingredients that have not been shown to be safe. Plaintiffs further contended that defendants deceived consumers by affirmatively misrepresenting the safety of their products.  Plaintiffs averred that they purchased the products for use on their young children, and contended that, had defendants disclosed the contaminants in their children’s products and the fact that all ingredients were not "proven safe," they would not
have purchased the products at all.

To evidence the alleged hazards, plaintiffs cited a press release and a report entitled “No More Toxic Tub,” both of which were published by an extremist anti-business group, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. In the report, the Campaign points to trace amounts of chemicals such as formaldehyde allegedly in defendants’ products.

They sued for alleged violations of California’s false advertising statute, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500, et seq.; California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.; and California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750, et seq.; and
various other state unfair and deceptive trade practices acts, as well as making common law claims for misrepresentation; fraud; and breach of warranties.  Plaintiffs noted they intended to move for certification of a nationwide class and various subclasses.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss.  They first argued that plaintiffs did not have standing to sue
because they cannot show that they have suffered a concrete, actual injury-in-fact. Plaintiffs responded that they pleaded two injuries sufficient to confer standing: “(1) risk of harm to their children resulting from their exposure to carcinogenic baby bath products; and (2) economic harm resulting from the purchase of these contaminated, defective bath products.”

The court rejected this plaintiff argument, noting that plaintiffs did not cite controlling authority that the “risk of harm” injury employed to establish standing in traditional environmental cases in some states applies equally to what is, at base, a product liability action. To the extent that an increased risk of harm could constitute an injury-in-fact in a product liability case such as this one, in any event, plaintiffs would have to at lease plead a credible or substantial threat to their health or that of their children to establish their standing to bring suit.  But plaintiffs did not allege such a threat. They made general statements about the alleged toxicity of various chemicals, but did not allege that the amounts of the substances allegedly in defendants’ products have caused harm or create a credible or substantial risk of harm.  {Fundamental principle of toxicology - dose matters.}  Plaintiffs did not plead facts sufficient to show that a palpable risk exists. In fact, plaintiffs' own pleading noted that the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has stated that, although the presence of certain chemicals “is cause for concern,” the CPSC is merely continuing “to monitor its use in consumer products.”  Seemed a far cry from substantial risk.

The court found this case analogous to Koronthaly v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 2008 WL 2938045 (D.N.J.), aff’d, 2010 WL 1169958 (3d Cir. 2010), which we posted on before, and which was dismissed on standing grounds. There, the plaintiff was a regular user of the defendants’ lipstick, which, according to another report by the same Campaign group, contained lead.  The plaintiff alleged that she had been injured “by mere exposure to lead-containing lipstick and by her increased risk of being poisoned by lead.”  However, she did not complain of any current injuries. The district court concluded, and the Third Circuit affirmed, that the plaintiff’s allegations of future injury
were “too remote and abstract to qualify as a concrete and particularized injury.” Id. at *5.

The court here also held that the various counts failed to state a claim. For example the fraud-related claims failed to plead, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), “the who, what, when, where, and how of the alleged fraud.” See Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1106 (9th Cir. 2003).  While plaintiffs tried to argue that their consumer fraud act claims are different from common law fraud, the Ninth Circuit has held that Rule 9(b) applied to a plaintiff’s claims under the CLRA and UCL when they were grounded in fraud.  Also, plaintiffs did not not plead the circumstances in which they were exposed to the alleged false statements. Nor did they plead which of these alleged misrepresentations they relied on in making their purchase of products.  Again, plaintiffs cited In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal. 4th 298 (2009), to argue that they were not required to allege which representations they specifically saw. That case was factually distinguishable on many grounds.  And, in any event, to the extent In re Tobacco II provides that to establish UCL standing, reliance need not be proved through exposure to particular advertisements under some unique factual circumstance, the case does not stand for, nor could it stand for, a general relaxation of the pleading requirements under Federal Rule 9(b).

Similarly, plaintiffs made the general allegation that defendants engaged in unfair business acts or practices but did not allege facts suggesting that consumers have suffered an injury based on the defendants’ alleged conduct. Thus, for the same reasons they lacked Article III standing, they failed to state a claim for those types of claims as well. 

The court gave plaintiffs leave to try to file an amended complaint.

 

Snapple The Best Stuff in Court - Consumer Class Action Denied

Earlier this month a trial court in New York denied class certification purchaser of Snapple beverages who complained that drinks labeled “All Natural” are somehow misleading because they contain high fructose corn syrup.  See Weiner v. Snapple Beverage Corp., (S.D.N.Y. 8/3/10).

Off and on, we have commented on the growing and alarming trend for plaintiffs lawyers to concoct consumer fraud class action claims against products, even when consumers were not injured and got basically what they paid for, because of some alleged ambiguity in the label or old-fashioned puffing.

Snapple Beverage Corporation was founded in New York’s Greenwich Village in 1972. Snapple began selling and marketing its teas and juice drinks in the late 1980s. In marketing its beverages, Snapple focused on, among other things, flavor, innovation, and humor. Snapple became known for its quirky personality and funny advertising, as well as its colorful product labels and beverage names. For instance, Snapple’s television advertisements featured, among other things, Snapple bottles dressed in wigs and hats, singing in a Backstreet-esque “boy-band,” running with the bulls (hamsters with cardboard horns) in Spain, and performing synchronized swimming.

When Snapple entered the beverages market in the late 1980s, it avoided putting preservatives, which were then commonly found in some similar beverages, in its teas and juice drinks. Snapple was able to do so by using a “hot-fill” process, which uses high-temperature heat pasteurization to preserve products immediately before bottling. Snapple also used 16-ounce glass bottles instead of aluminum cans or plastic. Hence the term on their label "All Natural."

From their inception, Snapple’s beverages were sweetened with high fructose corn syrup.  HFCS is made from corn ( a natural product last time we checked), and its primary constituents are glucose and fructose, the sugars that comprise table sugar and honey (which also sound pretty natural). It is undisputed that Snapple disclosed the inclusion of HFCS in the ingredient list that appears on the label of every bottle of Snapple that was labeled “All Natural.”

But plaintiffs alleged that they paid a price premium for Snapple beverages as a result of the “All Natural” labeling, and that Snapple’s “All Natural” labeling was misleading because Snapple had HFCS.  They brought a class action on behalf of all people who purchased Snapple in New York.  The FDA is reportedly looking at whether high fructose corn syrup may be considered a natural ingredient, but the court didn't need that guidance to dispose of this bogus class claim.

The court focused on the Rule 23(b)(3) predominance inquiry which tests whether proposed classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation. The predominance requirement is met only if the plaintiff can establish that the issues in the class action that are subject to generalized proof, and thus applicable to the class as a whole, predominate over those issues that are subject only to individualized proof.  The issues in turn are determined by the causes of action and defenses to them.  Plaintiffs' main claim was for alleged deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce under N.Y. Gen. Bus. L. § 349. Generally, claims under § 349 are available to an individual consumer who falls victim to misrepresentations made by a seller of consumer goods through false or misleading advertising.

New York's § 349 does not require proof of actual reliance. But the plaintiff must show that the defendant’s material deceptive act caused the injury. In addition, a plaintiff must prove actual injury to recover under the statute.  The court noted that proof of actual injury in this case is bound up in proof of damages, or by how much plaintiffs have been harmed. Only by showing that plaintiffs in fact paid more for Snapple beverages as a result of Snapple’s “All Natural” labeling could plaintiffs establish the requisite elements of causation and actual injury under § 349.

The court concluded that plaintiffs had not proposed a suitable methodology for establishing the critical elements of causation and injury on a class-wide basis. Without a reliable methodology, plaintiffs had not shown that they could prove at trial using common evidence that putative class members in fact paid a premium for the beverage. Because individualized inquiries as to causation, injury, and damages for each of the millions of putative class members would  predominate over any issues of law or fact common to the class, plaintiffs’ § 349 claim could not be certified under Rule 23(b)(3).

In support of their contention that causation and injury were susceptible to generalized proof on a class-wide basis, plaintiffs relied on the expert report of Dr. Alan Goedde, an economist.  In his report, Goedde proposed two “approaches” for determining the purported price premium attributable to Snapple’s “All Natural” labeling: (1) a “yardstick” approach, which would use “class-wide economic data and standard economic methodologies” to “compare the price of products labeled ‘All Natural’ to similar products which do not have ‘All Natural’ labeling;” and (2) an “inherent value”  approach, which would analyze unspecified “studies and market research” to gather “data that can be used to determine the increased value, standing alone, that a product realizes due to the perception of that product being natural.”

The court found Goedde’s testimony unreliable. The witness did not demonstrate in adequate detail how his proposed “approaches” would be used to develop an empirical algorithm to determine, on a class-wide basis, whether there was a price premium as a result of Snapple’s “All Natural” labeling and, if so, how such a premium could be quantified. For example, he did not identify the products to which Snapple should be compared. He did not explain how his approach would isolate the impact of the “All Natural” labeling from the other factors that purportedly affect the price of Snapple and its competitors. He failed to take into account that there was no uniform price for Snapple beverages during the class period, and thus did not explain how his approach would account for the various prices that putative class members actually paid in determining injury
on a class-wide basis.

Goedde relied on two internal Snapple marketing strategy documents to support his alternate hypothesis that Snapple’s “All Natural” label allowed it to command a premium in the marketplace. Yet he did not review the deposition transcripts of Snapple’s witnesses or any of the other  documents produced by Snapple, which would have provided critical context for these documents.

The court accurately spotlighted the common plaintiff tactic in these kinds of cases: the failure to
invest sufficient time and effort to develop a reliable methodology to support an expert opinion at the class certification stage.  Although the court thought plaintiffs correct in arguing that Goedde need not “implement” or fully “test” his methodology at the class certification stage, an expert must still provide sufficient detail about the proposed methodology to permit a court to determine whether the methodology is suitable to the task at hand.

Without Goedde’s testimony, plaintiffs offered no evidence that a suitable methodology is available to prove the elements of causation and actual injury on a class-wide basis. Individualized inquiries would therefore be required in order to determine whether class members in fact paid a premium for Snapple beverages, and whether any such premium was attributable to the “All Natural” labeling. This would require, among other things, an examination of each of the millions of class members’ Snapple purchases, which the evidence showed were made in different locations, at different times, and for different prices, over the nearly eight-year class period.

One further issue of note is class definition.  The court found that plaintiffs failed to show how the potentially millions of putative class members could be ascertained using objective criteria that were administratively feasible. Plaintiffs - typically  - suggested that after certification, the court could require simply that class members produce a receipt, offer a product label, or even sign a declaration to confirm that the individual had purchased a Snapple beverage within the class period. The court labeled this suggestion "unrealistic." Plaintiffs offered no basis to assume that putative class members retained a receipt, bottle label, or any other concrete documentation of their purchases of Snapple beverages bearing the “All Natural” description.  Indeed, putative class members were unlikely to remember accurately every Snapple purchase during the class period, much less whether it was an “All Natural” or diet beverage, whether it was purchased as a single bottle or part of a six-pack or case, whether they used a coupon, or what price they paid. Soliciting declarations from putative class members regarding their history of Snapple purchases would invite them "to speculate, or worse."

However beloved Snapple may be, said the court,  there is no evidence to suggest that its consumers treat it like a fine wine and remove and save its labels.

 

Consumer Class Certification Denied -- Again

An up and down class action proceeding involving Listerine has taken a new turn. Pfizer Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No.B188106 (Cal. App. 3/2/10).

Plaintiffs brought a proposed class action on behalf of California consumers who allegedly purchased Listerine on the claim that the mouthwash prevented plaque and gingivitis as effectively as dental floss, relying on the state's Unfair Competition Law (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.) and the False Advertising Law (FAL) (§ 17500 et seq.).  The trial court certified a California class consisting of all individuals who purchased Listerine between June, 2004 and January, 2005.  The appeals court initially ruled in 2006 that the trial court’s certification was overbroad, relying on Proposition 64 which amended standing requirements in such actions and requires proof that the proposed class suffered injury.  Following the decertification order, however, the California Supreme Court ordered the appeals court to revisit the issue in light of its intervening decision in In re: Tobacco II, 46 Cal.4th 298 (2009). 


Upon remand, the court of appeals vacated the prior opinion, received supplemental briefs from the
parties and amici curiae, and reconsidered. Upon reflection, the appeals court concluded that the circumstances of the case still did not warrant class certification.

The court noted that the causation requirement for purposes of establishing standing under the UCL, and in particular the meaning of the phrase "as a result of" in section 17204, holds that a class representative proceeding on a claim of misrepresentation as the basis of his or her UCL action must demonstrate actual reliance on the allegedly deceptive or misleading statements, in accordance with well-settled principles regarding the element of reliance in ordinary fraud actions. Those same principles, the state supreme court had said Tobacco II in an amazingly result-driven fashion, do not require the class representative to plead or prove with an "unrealistic degree of specificity" that the plaintiff relied on particular advertisements or statements when the unfair practice is a fraudulent advertising campaign. But Tobacco II does not stand for the proposition that a consumer who was never exposed to an alleged false or misleading advertising or promotional campaign is entitled to restitution.

The certified class, consisting of all purchasers of Listerine in California, was overbroad because it presumed there was a class-wide injury. However, the record reflected that of 34 different Listerine mouthwash bottles on sale, 19 never included any label that made any statement comparing Listerine mouthwash to floss. Further, even as to those flavors and sizes of Listerine mouthwash bottles to which defendant did affix the labels which were at issue, not every bottle shipped between in the class period bore such a label. Also, although Pfizer allegedly ran four different television commercials with the “as effective as floss” campaign, the commercials did not run continuously and there is no evidence that a majority of Listerine consumers viewed any of those commercials. Thus, many, perhaps the majority of, class members who purchased Listerine during the pertinent period did so not because of any exposure to any allegedly deceptive conduct, but rather, because they were brand-loyal customers or for other reasons. As to such consumers, there is absolutely no likelihood they were deceived by the alleged false or misleading advertising or promotional campaign. Such persons cannot meet the standard of having money restored to them because it “may have been acquired by means of” the unfair practice.

Finally, plaintiff testified he did not make his purchase based on any of the four television commercials or other ads, and that he bought Listerine due to the bottle’s red label (which differed from the other labels), which he recalled said “as effective as floss.”  Because the various commercials and labels contained different language, with some even expressly advising consumers to continue flossing, his testimony as to his reaction to the Listerine label is not probative of his, or absent class members’, reaction to different language contained in television commercials and other labels. Therefore, named plaintiff lacked standing to assert a UCL claim based on those television commercials or other labels.

 

 


 

Court Dismisses Vitamin Consumer Class Action

A federal court has dismissed a class action that accused Bayer Corp. of misrepresenting the cancer-preventing nature of its men's vitamin products. Johns v. Bayer Corp. et al., (S.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2010).

Readers of MassTortDefense know how a government investigation or advocacy group's criticism of a product can spawn products liability and other class action litigation.  But can plaintiffs walk too closely in the footsteps of the government?

Plaintiff David Johns filed a putative class action alleging that defendants misrepresented on product packaging, commercial advertisements, their website, and in other marketing materials, that one of the product line's key ingredients, selenium, has the ability to reduce the risk of prostate cancer in men. Plaintiff alleges that, despite emerging evidence, selenium does not in fact prevent or reduce the risk of prostate cancer. Plaintiff alleged he purchased one bottle of Men’s Health in July 2009 for approximately $8.  He alleges he read the information regarding selenium on the product packaging and relied on those statements in making his purchasing decision.

Plaintiff then brought a proposed class action on behalf of all persons in the United States or, alternatively, all California residents, who since 2005 purchased the men's health vitamin products. Plaintiff alleged claims for: (1) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, California Business & Professions Code § 17200 (“UCL”), (2) violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code § 1750 (“CLRA”), and (3) unjust enrichment.

Defendants moved to strike key aspects of the complaint because the allegations seemingly were simply borrowed from the language of an FTC investigation of the vitamin product line. Defendants argued that these allegations violated plaintiff’s duty under Rule 11 to conduct a reasonable factual investigation into the allegations to be made in a complaint. Attorneys have a duty to make a reasonable inquiry into whether the factual contentions made in a complaint have evidentiary support. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 11(b).

That FTC lawsuit resulted in a settlement and consent decree; there was no adjudication on the merits and no admission of wrongdoing or fault on the part of Bayer.  Thus, quotes from the government pleadings were, at best, a repetition of mere allegations, including of a special interest advocacy group that had complained to the government.  The federal court thus struck these allegations. See also In re Connectics, 542 F. Supp. 2d 996, 1005-06 (N.D. Cal. 2008).  Because the court granted defendants’ motion to strike the various paragraphs of the complaint, there were no factual allegations remaining to support the claim that defendants’ advertising was deceptive. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice.

The court went on to address several issues "as guidance if Plaintiff chooses to file an amended
complaint."  The court noted that in two recent opinions, the Supreme Court had clarified the  standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) motions. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). To survive a motion to dismiss under this standard, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).  For example, the court pointed out a standing issue: plaintiff did not allege that he saw any advertisements for one of the products in the line, Men’s 50+, nor that he read the packaging on the product, nor that he even considered purchasing the product. Plaintiff cannot expand the scope of his claims to include a product he did not purchase or advertisements relating to a product that he did not rely upon. The statutory standing requirements of the UCL and CLRA are narrowly prescribed and do not permit such generalized allegations.

BPA Litigation Update- Part I

In the BPA MDL, Judge Ortrie D. Smith granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motions to dismiss various claims. In re: Bispehnol-A Polycarbonate Plastic Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1967 (W.D. Mo.).

Readers of MassTortDefense will recall that last year the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized fourteen cases; since then, the Panel has continued to transfer cases from around the country, so now about thirty-eight cases have been transferred. In addition, approximately ten cases have been filed in the MDL District and have become part of the consolidation. Defendants roughly fall into two categories: the Bottle Defendants and the Formula Defendants. Generally, the Bottle Defendants make baby bottles, sippy cups and similar products for infants and toddlers, and/or sport bottles. The Formula Defendants sell infant formula packaged in metal cans.

Most of the complaints assert, on behalf of consumers, various causes of action including: (1) violation of state consumer protection laws, (2) breach of express warranty, (3) breach of the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, (4) intentional misrepresentation, (5) negligent misrepresentation, and (6) unjust enrichment.

In one Order the court began by addressing the motions to dismiss claims for fraud, misrepresentation and breach of express warranties. The MDL court had previously, mindful of Rule 9, required plaintiffs to identify defendants’ alleged statements that form the basis for their claims of fraud, misrepresentation, and breach of express warranties. Plaintiffs’ continued failure to do so was, said the court, now fatal to these claims. Likely because they were unable to comply, and perhaps because they recognized what compliance would do to their already slim chances for class certification (because of the individual issues that a response would highlight), plaintiffs responded to the aforementioned requirement by saying that they had not identified any advertisements or other media because the allegations are not based on any particular representations. A misrepresentation claim not based on any misrepresentation. Rather, plaintiffs’ allegations are based on defendants’ supposed “overall course of conduct” in marketing and selling the products at issue. Taken as a whole, defendants’ alleged “overall course of conduct” somehow deceptively conveyed the impression or message that the products at issue are safe and healthy for use by infants and children.

By disclaiming reference to any particular fraudulent act, plaintiffs had disclaimed one of the essential elements of a fraud or misrepresentation claim. All states require proof of reliance and causation. For a statement to be relied upon and thus cause a purchaser’s injury, the statement must have been heard by the purchaser. Plaintiffs’ theory – that the placement of a product in a stream of commerce alone somehow conveys a sufficient representation about the product’s safety that can serve as grounds for fraud liability – is a rule that has not been demonstrated to exist in any of the fifty states.

Allowing the mere sale of products to convey an affirmative representation regarding safety would eviscerate the law of warranty and be contrary to the rationale supporting the limited circumstances in which actions constitute representations, noted the court.  Plaintiffs’ failure to identify any expressions made by defendants to them about their products precludes any claim that an express warranty was made, let alone violated. Given the absence of any “affirmation of fact or promise,” (see UCC Article 2-313), plaintiffs cannot allege an express warranty was made. The Supreme Court’s decision in Iqbal requires a plaintiff to identify the basis for, if not the content of, the alleged warranty. And, in a related issue, plaintiffs’ were thus unable to allege how the supposed, non-existent, warranties became “part of the basis of the bargain.”  A representation cannot be part of the “bargain” if the other party to the bargain did not know the representation was made! Merely alleging a representation became part of the bargain does not satisfy Iqbal. If one party (here, the buyer) is not aware of the statement, that party cannot claim the statement became a part of the parties’ bargain.

The court declined to dismiss the claims for fraudulent omissions, based on what it called a “common-sense” view of Rule 9 under which it was unnecessary to require plaintiffs to specifically identify who failed to disclose information and each occasion upon which they failed to disclose it. Rule 9 is satisfied, said the court, with respect to a claim of fraudulent omissions if the omitted information is identified and “how or when” the concealment occurred.

The claim for breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose was dismissed because while the ordinary purpose for baby bottles can be described as to allow babies and toddlers to drink liquids, a plaintiff cannot rely on this ordinary purpose to support a claim that there was a warranty of fitness for a particular purpose; they must point to some other purpose that is not “ordinary” in order to support their claim.

The court put off ruling on the claims for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability because defendants’ arguments (including lack of privity, untimeliness, and failure to provide notice), seemed premised on the unique characteristics of various states’ laws. Thus, they seemed more amenable to analysis at the time of any class certification decision, which will inevitably raise choice of law issues. A similar deferral was applied to dismissal of all unjust enrichment claims. Many of defendants’ arguments seemed to depend on unique aspects of various states’ laws, found the court.

Defendants also made a strong argument that the claims, at bottom, were improper “no injury” claims. The court agreed as to the category of plaintiffs who disposed of or used up the products before learning about BPA. They received all the benefits they desired and were unaffected by defendants’ alleged concealment. Importantly, the court recognized that while they may contend they would not have purchased the goods had they known more about BPA, these plaintiffs received 100% use (and benefit) from the products and have no quantifiable damages. In this instance, plaintiffs’ position “leads to absurd results.”  These buyers obtained the full anticipated benefit of the bargain. While they may not have paid the asking price, had they allegedly known, offset against this is the fact that they received the full benefits paid for – leaving them with no damages. Plaintiffs here may allege they would not have purchased those products had they supposedly known the true facts, but, again, they obtained full use of those products before learning the truth: the formula was consumed or the children grew to an age where they did not use bottles and sippy cups, so they were discarded. These consumers thus obtained full value from their purchase and have not suffered any damage. These plaintiffs are relegated to the unjust enrichment claim.

The court distinguished, however, those plaintiffs who learned about BPA’s presence and potential effects and either still have the goods or subsequently replaced or disposed of them. Defendants’ argument does not apply to this category, found the court.

That left before the court only plaintiffs’ claims that defendants made fraudulent omissions, violated various state consumer protection statutes, breached the implied warranty of merchantability, and that defendants were unjustly enriched. With these remaining claims pending, the court, in a second order, granted in part defendants’ motion to dismiss on the basis of preemption and denied their motion to dismiss on the ground of primary jurisdiction.

Defendants’ preemption and primary jurisdiction arguments were generally alike in that they both contend their use of BPA should only be subject to regulation by the FDA. Indeed, FDA has issued regulations prescribing the conditions for “safe” use of resinous and polymeric coatings, allowing the coatings to be formulated from “optional substances” that may include “[e]poxy resins” containing BPA. Thus, BPA’s presence in some resinous and polymeric coatings and in polycarbonate resins is subject to regulation by the FDA. It is also a fair reading of FDA’s regulations authorizing BPA’s use that the FDA thinks that food additives containing BPA could be used safely without labeling requirements.

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies when enforcement of a claim that is originally cognizable in the courts requires the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory scheme, have been placed within the special competence of an administrative body. The FDA clearly has specialized expertise and experience to determine whether BPA is “safe.” However, said the court, the ultimate issues in these cases, as alleged by plaintiffs, are whether defendants failed to disclose material facts to plaintiffs and thus, for example, whether defendants breached the implied warranty of merchantability through the sale of products containing BPA. FDA’s decision that BPA is “safe” is not determinative of any of those issues, said the court. This conclusion seemed to give insufficient attention, in our view, to the argument that plaintiffs have predicated their claims on proof that BPA is allegedly unsafe: the undisclosed facts are not material unless BPA is not safe. The products are not unmerchantable unless BPA is unsafe, Since plaintiffs base their claims on such evidence, the claims seemed to fall within the primary jurisdiction of the FDA.  The MDL court did not agree.

Turning to the preemption issue, the court first rejected the claim of implied preemption. While noting that FDA has approved BPA use in food additives and noting the agency’s decision not to require labeling, the court concluded that the FDA’s approval of BPA as safe without labeling requirements establishes only a regulatory minimum; nothing in these regulations either required or prohibited defendants from providing the disclosures sought. The court cited Wyeth v. Levine for the proposition that that there is no preemption when federal law did not prevent the drug manufacturer from strengthening its drug label as necessary to comply with the standard to be imposed by state law.

However, the Formula Defendants also raised express preemption; they asserted that the FDA regulations exempt Formula Defendants from having to disclose the presence of BPA in their products. Express preemption exists when a federal law explicitly prohibits state regulation in a particular field. With respect to food labeling, federal law generally prohibits states from establishing any differing requirements for the labeling of food. Thus, plaintiffs’ claims are expressly preempted because they would impose disclosure requirements concerning BPA, the exact opposite of the exemption. Now, here is the interesting twist: plaintiffs asserted that Congress also provided an exception to express preemption under the law for “any requirement respecting a statement in the labeling of food that provides for a warning concerning the safety of the food or component of the food.”  But, the court noted, plaintiffs cannot have it both ways.  If their claims are based on warnings about the safety of food, then their claims would have been subject to dismissal under the primary jurisdiction doctrine because the determination whether BPA is “safe” is solely the province of the FDA, and the FDA has concluded that the use of BPA in epoxy liners is “safe” so long as the manufacturer abides by the FDA’s prescribed conditions. See 21 C.F.R. § 175.300 (2009).  If the claims against the Formula Defendants are not subject to primary jurisdiction, as plaintiffs argued, then they are subject to express preemption analysis.

It may seem clear to readers of MassTortDefense that even with respect to those claims the court concluded should not be dismissed on the pleadings, the court's analysis highlights several issues that may make it difficult for the plaintiffs to proceed as a viable class action. 

 

Federal Court Dimisses Consumer Fraud Allegations in Washer Litigation

A federal court has dismissed (with prejudice) a variety of consumer fraud and unjust enrichment claims in litigation alleging issues with front-loading washers. Butler, et al. v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., No. 06 C 7023 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 4, 2009).

In their Consolidated Complaint, plaintiffs alleged that the washing machines they bought
from Sears suffered from electronic control board failure and an alleged design defect that prevented adequate water drainage and proper self-cleaning. The water drainage and
cleaning defect allegedly resulted in odors on clothes. Plaintiffs contended that the electronic control board failure is manifested by the washing machines prematurely and repeatedly failing mechanically. 

Defendant was alleged to have known about the defects because of allegedly similar problems with other washing machines, and customer complaints of mold problems. As a result, plaintiffs contended that Sears violated their respective home states’ consumer fraud statutes.

The case has a bit of a history, as prior versions of these allegations had been the subject of three motions to dismiss. Although the court did allow plaintiffs to file this consolidated amended complaint (these cases were consolidated for purposes of discovery and pretrial proceedings on January 6, 2009), plaintiffs did not request leave to re-allege the claims that were dismissed with prejudice in the prior rulings, including consumer fraud claims under the laws of California, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, and Washington. See 2008 WL 4450307, at *8. Plaintiffs. however, re-alleged these claims in substantially the same form in their Consolidated Complaint.  Without leave to do so, and new details, these claims could not survive.

In order to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the complaint must not only provide the defendant with fair notice of the claim’s basis, but must also establish that the requested relief is plausible on its
face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, (2009); see also Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Allegations of fraud are subject to the heightened pleading standard of Rule 9(b), which requires a plaintiff to state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud. Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). This means that the plaintiff must plead the “who, what, when, where, and how" of the alleged fraud.

The court found that the new allegations  were insufficient to meet Rule 9(b)’s pleading requirements. Plaintiffs adequately averred defendant's knowledge, but they did not adequately allege the other required elements. For example, plaintiffs had not indicated how the alleged reported failure rate compares with the failure rates of comparable machines produced by comparable manufacturers. Plaintiffs also failed to specify how often design or manufacturing defects related to self-cleaning features of washers occur. No meaningful engineering explanation had been alleged. The language reproduced in the Consolidated Complaint offered far from a meaningful engineering explanation for the defects; the allegations were vague and indeterminate.

The alleged violation of California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Cal. Civil Code § 1790 et seq., survived the motion to dismiss.  But, overall, product manufacturers can appreciate the court's application of the Twombly doctrine, the fraud pleading requirements, and its reluctance to give plaintiffs many, many bites of the apple.  Federal court litigation should not be "if at first you do not succeed, try, try again," with the trial court offering plaintiff's counsel a road map how to construct a proper pleading.

Federal Court Dismisses Consumer Fraud Class Action on Washers

A federal court has dismissed a putative class action alleging that Sears Roebuck & Co. and Whirlpool Corp. engaged in unfair business practices and misleadingly marketed thousands of supposedly defective washing machines. Tietsworth et al. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. et al., No. 09-cv-288 (N.D. Calif.)(dismissal without prejudice).

Plaintiffs alleged that  Whirlpool manufactured top-loading Kenmore Elite Oasis automatic washing machines, and Sears marketed, advertised, distributed, warranted, and offered repair services for the machines. Plaintiffs alleged that thousands of the machines contained a defect that causes them to stop in mid-cycle and display a variety of error codes.  Plaintiffs claimed that these electrical control system problems began within the first year after they purchased their washers. Plaintiffs alleged that virtually everything the defendants said about the machines in marketing was false because all such statements related directly to the functioning and performance of the Machine’s Electronic Control Board and, in turn, the Electronic Control Board controls the laundry cycles, the water levels and spin speed.

Defendants moved to dismiss. A complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if a plaintiff fails to proffer enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Allegations of material fact must be taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, but the court need not accept as true allegations that are conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences. Here, although their claims arose under state law, plaintiffs' allegations were subject to the pleading requirements of the Federal Rules. Accordingly, the claims alleging fraud were subject to the heightened pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). See Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1103-04 (9th Cir. 2003) (if “the claim is said to be “grounded in fraud” or to “sound in fraud,” [then] the pleading of that claim as a whole must satisfy the particularity requirement of Rule 9(b).”)

The principal element of fraudulent concealment at issue here was whether plaintiffs pled with sufficient particularity that defendants had a duty of disclosure with respect to the allegedly defective Electronic Control Boards. Plaintiffs argue that defendants had such a duty because they allegedly made "partial disclosures" about the Machines,and  were in a “superior
position" to know the truth.  These arguments were not persuasive to the court. There was no allegation at all, let alone an allegation with Rule 9 specificity, that defendants made any representations directly about the allegedly defective Electronic Control Boards. Nor could plaintiffs establish a duty by pleading, in purely conclusory fashion, that defendants were in a “superior position to know the truth;"  plaintiffs’ general allegations of “exclusive knowledge as the
manufacturer” and active concealment of a defect, if accepted, would mean that any unsatisfied customer could make a similar claim every time any product malfunctioned.

The district court then confirmed that Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading standards apply to claims for violations of this state consumer act (CLRA ) and unfair competition act (UCL),  where such claims are based on a fraudulent course of conduct.  It was clear that the claims were entirely dependent upon allegations that defendants made misrepresentations, failed to disclose material facts, and concealed known information regarding the allegedly defective Electronic Control Boards.  So such claims failed for the same reasons.

Next, plaintiffs claimed that defendants  violated California’s Business and Professions Code by making misleading representations in informational placards on the floor models of the machines and in owners’ manuals. However, the court held that statements that the machines are “designed and manufactured for years of dependable operation” and that the machines “save you time by allowing you to do fewer, larger loads” are not statements about specific or absolute characteristics of a product, and properly are considered non-actionable puffery. See Anunziato v. eMachines Inc., 402 F. Supp. 2d 1133, 1139 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (holding that the representations concerning the “outstanding quality, reliability, and performance” of a product were non-actionable puffery”).

Regarding the unfair business act claim, an act or practice is unfair if the consumer injury is substantial, is not outweighed by any countervailing benefit to consumers or to competition, and is not an injury the consumers themselves could reasonably have avoided. Plaintiffs failed to plead adequately the second and third elements of their claim.  Plaintiffs failed to allege that they could not reasonably have avoided their claimed injuries, for example by purchasing an extended warranty. To the extent that plaintiffs based their claim on defendants’ alleged failure to disclose a
known defect in the machines, a mere failure to disclose a latent defect does not constitute a
fraudulent business practice.

One other highlight.  Plaintiffs contended that defendants’ warranties were procedurally and substantively unconscionable because defendants limited the warranties and allegedly actively concealed a known defect. However, any such claim of oppression may be defeated if the
complaining party had reasonably available alternative sources of supply from which to obtain
the desired goods or services free of the terms claimed to be unconscionable.  Here, plaintiffs failed to allege facts demonstrating that there were no alternative manufacturers of washers, and thus failed to allege the absence of an “available alternative source of supply from which to obtain the desired goods or services free of the terms claimed to be unconscionable.”  Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Superior Court, 211 Cal. App.3d 758, 768 (1989). Plaintiffs' emphasis that  any material alternative product or choice was curtailed or eliminated by the suggestions of Sears’ sales representatives that defendants’ machines were “the best” and superior to other washers, far from showing the absence of alternatives, merely highlighted the fact that alternatives apparently existed. 

Third-Party Payor Class Action Alleging Off-Label Marketing Dismissed by Federal Court

The federal court has dismissed a putative class action brought by a group of municipal benefit funds over a pharmaceutical company's alleged efforts to market drugs for uses that did not have regulatory approval. Central Regional Employees Benefit Fund, et al. v. Cephalon Inc., No. 09-cv-03418 (D.N.J. Oct. 15, 2009).

Plaintiffs commenced this putative class action against defendants alleging violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (“NJCFA”), and for fraudulent concealment, and “illegal fraud.”  The plaintiffs defined their putative class as including “all governmental entities in the United States of
America who have been caused to expend monies" for certain drugs as a "result of the off label promotion by the defendants.”  They alleged that defendant Cephalon promoted drugs for uses other than those approved by the FDA, and that as part of its “off label” marketing efforts, Cephalon allegedly made false representations regarding the use and application of several in particular, Provigil, Gabitril, Actiq and Fentora.

The case, thus, falls in the growing body of cases by governmental third-party payors searching for a windfall in revenue by challenging the marketing practices of pharmaceutical companies over drugs that are effective, are safe, are prescribed by physicians, and are often affirmatively recommended by other branches of the entity bringing suit.  As many courts have held, off-label use is an accepted and necessary corollary of the FDA’s mission to regulate in this area without directly interfering with the practice of medicine. E.g., Southard v. Temple University Hospital, 566 Pa. 335, 340 781 A.2d 101, 104 (2001) (quoting Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs’ Legal Committee, 531 U.S. 341, 350 (2001)). Such use, necessary because medical practice inevitably runs ahead of the slower pace of governmental regulation, is generally accepted, widespread in the medical community, and often is essential to giving patients optimal medical care. Buckman, 531 U.S. at 351 & n.5 (citation omitted).  Thus, a physician, using his or her best medical judgment for the benefit of his patient, generally is free to use an approved product in a manner different from that for which the FDA has approved. Cabiroy v. Scipione, 767 A.2d 1078, 1082 (Pa. Super. 2001).

The FDA has accepted off-label use for decades:

  • Accepted medical practice often includes drug use that is not reflected in approved drug labeling. . . . a physician may prescribe a drug for. . .patient populations that are not included in approved labeling. Such. . .‘unlabeled’ uses may be appropriate and rational in certain circumstances, and may, in fact, reflect approaches to drug therapy that have been extensively reported in medical literature. . . . Valid new uses for drugs already on the market are often first discovered through serendipitous observations and therapeutic innovations.

FDA, “Use of Approved Drugs for Unlabeled Indications,” 12 FDA Drug Bulletin 4, 5 (1982). 

It is clear that physicians may prescribe a drug off-label for an unapproved population without FDA knowledge or approval.  Blain v. Smithkline Beecham Corp., 240 F.R.D. 179, 182 (E.D. Pa. 2007). And courts are “not willing to accept that a plaintiff could somehow be injured by purchasing a drug that is as effective, or more effective, than alternative treatments simply because the drug is marketed off-label.”  In re Schering-Plough Corp. Intron/Temodar Consumer Class Action, 2009 WL 2043604, at *10 (D.N.J. July 10, 2009). Absent some “adverse effects,” a “theory under which [plaintiffs] would be entitled to reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price of [a drug] whose benefits they clearly enjoyed. . . is patently absurd.”  Heindel v. Pfizer, Inc., 381 F. Supp.2d 364, 380 (D.N.J. 2004).  

Cephalon moved to dismiss the NJCFA and common law fraud claims, contending that the plaintiffs failed to plead specific acts of fraud to support the legal conclusions contained in the Complaint. The plaintiff’s factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007). Also, the plaintiffs’ common law fraud claims were subject to the heightened pleading standards of Rule 9(b), which requires that in all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity. Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b).

Cephalon argued that the plaintiffs, as third-party payors of prescription medication benefits, are not “consumers” under the NJCFA. The court said that the nature of the transaction, not the identity of the purchaser, determines whether the NJCFA is applicable. J & R Ice Cream Corp. v. Cal. Smoothie Lic. Corp., 31 F.3d 1259, 1273 (3d Cir. 1994).  For a NJCFA plaintiff to be a consumer respecting the transaction in question, the business entity must be one who uses economic goods, and so diminishes or destroys their utilities. However, third-party payors essentially serve as middlemen or insurers, paying all or part of the cost of a beneficiary’s drugs in return for a stream of payments from the beneficiary.  Because third-party payors do not use or consume prescription medications themselves, they are not “consumers” within the meaning of the NJCFA, and that statute was therefore inapplicable to the circumstances alleged in the Complaint.

Next, the court found that the plaintiffs’ common law fraud claims failed to meet the pleading requirements of Twombly, Iqbal, and Rule 9(b). Count II of the Complaint, fraudulent concealment, referred merely to an unspecified “transaction and/or providing of the prescription drugs Provigil,
Gabitril, Actiq and Fentora.” The court was at a loss to discern to what transaction the plaintiffs were
referring, as the Complaint fails to identify or explain the who,what, where, why, and how of any “transaction.”  Mere allegations that Cephalon provided prescription drugs, without saying to whom or under what circumstances, wholly failed to state a claim for fraud. 

The plaintiffs attempted to rely on a reference in the Complaint to a proceeding in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in 2003, brought pursuant to the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq., wherein Cephalon was alleged to have engaged in “misbranding” of its products. However, referring to a plea agreement and civil settlement in another action does not satisfy the plaintiffs’ burden; it is well-established that off-label marketing of an approved drug is itself not inherently fraudulent. Merely alleging that Cephalon marketed the drugs at issue for off-label purposes did not state a claim for fraud.

The court thus also dismissed the claims for fraudulent concealment and illegal fraud, but without prejudice.
 

Consumer Fraud Class Action Rejected In Supplement Case

A putative class action of purchasers of the asserted mood enhancer and belly fat reducer Relacore was recently rejected by a New Jersey appeals court.  Lee v. Carter-Reed Co., 2009 WL 2475314 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 8/14/09).  The court affirmed a lower court's decision not to certify the class action, in which plaintiffs had alleged that the defendant falsely advertised the benefits of the product.

Plaintiff Melissa Lee alleged she purchased Relacore, manufactured and distributed by Carter-Reed Co., and asserted that she purchased the product based on the promise that it would reduce belly fat. But, she averred, she actually gained belly weight during the time she took the product.  She claims that defendant's advertising campaigns touted that Relacore helps reduce stress-induced belly fat. Lee claimed that the defendant devised and utilized a fraudulent, deceptive advertising campaign for Relacore. She sought relief under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and related common law fraud theories.

Following discovery limited to class suitability, plaintiff moved for class certification. Defendants opposed the motion. Following oral argument, the trial court denied the application for class certification, citing absence of superiority,  manageability, and predominance. In an unpublished per curiam opinion, the Superior Court affirmed and held that individual issues predominated over issues allegedly common to the class.

The court noted first that the superiority requirement requires an analysis that includes: (1) an informed consideration of alternative available methods of adjudication of each issue, (2) a comparison of the fairness to all whose interests may be involved between such alternative methods and a class action, and (3) a comparison of the efficiency of adjudication of each method. Manageability of the class is a consideration, as well, but it is “disfavored” in NJ to deny class certification on this basis alone. In order to justify denial of class certification on this basis, the management issues must be of great magnitude. 

Here, the issues of superioirty and of manageability were subordinate to the issue of predominance.  A party asserting a CFA claim in New Jersey must establish wrongful conduct, an ascertainable loss, and a causal relationship or nexus between the wrongful conduct and the loss. A common law fraud claim requires proof of  a material representation of a presently existing or past fact, made with knowledge of its falsity and with the intention that the other party rely thereon, resulting in reliance by that party to his detriment. 

In this case, the central issue for the consumer fraud claim was the existence of a causal nexus between the wrongful conduct and any loss.  Plaintiff asserts that she relied on a false marketing campaign and she was induced by the false representations to purchase and use the product. Neither plaintiff nor the court knew, however, what caused others to purchase and use the product. Neither plaintiff nor the court knew whether putative class members even saw the alleged print or Internet advertisements or whether they purchased the product due to a recommendation from a friend or family member or for some other reasons.

Moreover, the Relacore market campaign was multi-faceted. In some ads, it was touted as a belly fat retardant; in others, a mood elevator; in others, a stress reducer.  There was no way to know on a common basis the reason any putative class members purchased the product, even assuming they heard or saw any advertising. This distinguished the case from Varacallo v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co., 332 N.J. Super. 31 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2000), in which the court certified a class of those who purchased “vanishing premium” life insurance, and in which the advertising approach was uniform and common to all class members.

The lack of predominance was even more obvious in the context of plaintiff's common law fraud claim. For this claim, the putative class must prove reliance -- which they could not on a common basis.

The case is useful as it analyzes establishing a causal nexus between the challenged conduct and an ascertainable loss.  Properly viewed, that causal link ought to be a major impediment to class certification because it requires individualized factual determinations for absent class members. Plaintiff's argument to extend Varacallo to false advertising product cases brought forth numerous opposing amici, including PLAC.


 

Second Circuit to Hear Appeal of Class Certification Decision in Zyprexa RICO Case

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently agreed to hear Eli Lilly’s appeal of a federal district court's orders granting class certification and denying summary judgment in litigation over its anti-psychotic medication, Zyprexa. See In re Zyprexa Products Liability Litigation, 08-4685-mv (2d Cir. 1/15/09).

Judge Jack B. Weinstein of the the Eastern District of New York had granted class certification last fall to a group of third-party payers, including insurance companies, who were suing Eli Lilly for alleged overpayment after the company allegedly exaggerated the benefits of the drug and supposedly failed to disclose certain side effects. The 2d Circuit has now granted the 23(f) motion for leave to appeal.

Readers of MassTortDefense may recall that the 2d Circuit just last year in McLaughlin v. American Tobacco Co., 522 F.3d 215 (2d Cir. 2008), overruled Judge Weinstein's certification of a class of “light” cigarette smokers, finding that individualized issues regarding reliance, loss causation, damages and injury all precluded a finding that common issues predominated over individualized ones as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). The Zyprexa class claim was brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1964, as plaintiffs seek to take advantage of their reading of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co., 128 S. Ct. 2131 (2008), regarding reliance in a RICO fraud claim.

In certifying the class in Zyprexa, Judge Weinstein applied his take on the reasoning in Bridge, finding that third-party payers had colorable claims based on the allegedly fraudulent statements made to and relied upon by doctors who prescribed the drugs (not parties). As warned of in our post here last year, the Supreme Court had appeared to reject the defense argument that the proximate cause requirement inherent in the “by reason of” language of the RICO statute demands that a civil RICO plaintiff asserting a claim based on fraud establish his reliance on a misrepresentation by the defendant. In the context of a civil RICO claim predicated on fraud, the required causal link demands a showing that the plaintiff relied on an alleged misrepresentation made to the plaintiff by the defendant. Otherwise, the causal relationship between the alleged injury and the alleged fraud is too attenuated.

The Court appeared to reject petitioners' arguments that under the “common-law meaning” rule, Congress should be presumed to have made reliance an element of a civil RICO claim predicated on a violation of the mail fraud statute. And rejected the argument that a plaintiff bringing a RICO claim based on mail fraud must show reliance on the defendant's misrepresentations in order to establish proximate cause. The Court felt it had no ability to respond to the policy argument that RICO should be interpreted to require first-party reliance for fraud-based claims in order to avoid the “overfederalization” of traditional state law claims. A RICO plaintiff who alleges injury by reason of a pattern of mail fraud cannot prevail without showing that someone relied on the defendant's misrepresentations. But that does not mean, under one reading of Bridge, that the only injuries proximately caused by the misrepresentation are those suffered by the recipient.

The Court’s decision on reliance was based on statutory interpretation, rather than logic or common sense. We predicted that the absence of a clear reliance requirement may in fact make this type of claim even more popular with mass tort plaintiffs. And we are seeing its potential effect on class certification decisions in some district courts.
 

State Supreme Court Upholds Certification of Nationwide Class

The Oklahoma Supreme Court earlier this month upheld certification of a nationwide class in litigation alleging DaimlerChrysler Corp. should have provided repairs to steering systems on vehicles manufactured between 1993 and 2001. Masquat v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., Okla., No. 104971 (7/1/08), found here.

Plaintiffs alleged that LH platform vehicles contained a defect in the power rack and pinion steering system. These vehicles were sold as various Dodge and Chrysler models during model years 1993 through most of 2001. Plaintiffs alleged that shortly after production and sale of the LH vehicles began, Defendant began to receive reports from consumers of steering related problems. Defendant eventually introduced a newly designed steering system bolt, in late calendar year 2000.  Plaintiffs' theory is that the cure/repair to the problem developed by Defendant was never provided to already-produced LH platform vehicles, and consumers were not adequately informed that the fix was available and that the repair should be made.

Among the defenses asserted was the fact that the claims of most of the proposed class members seemed time-barred. Plaintiffs’ response was that the statute of limitations was tolled, based on alleged "active concealment" of the alleged defect in the steering system.

Following a hearing on the motion for class certification, the trial court certified a nationwide class of current owners of the vehicles. Class certification in Oklahoma is governed by Okla. Stat. Tit. 12 Sec. 2023, which provides for numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy in language similar to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), and for predominance and superiority in the same manner as Rule 23(b)(3). Defendants appealed, continuing to assert that individual issues predominate, especially those raised by the choice of law issues. Nationwide classes typically are inappropriate because they require the class court to try to explain, and the jury to try to apply, the varying law of 51 different jurisdictions.

The Supreme Court first noted that the substantive law of Michigan would apply to all the breach of warranty claims in this matter. The class of plaintiffs is pursuing breach of warranty claims against a Michigan manufacturer. Under the "most significant relationship" test applied in Oklahoma, Michigan law applies. Furthermore, the factual issues associated with the breach of warranty claims appear to be essentially uniform across the class as they arise from the same event or course of conduct and give rise to the same legal or remedial theory, said the Court.

The more hotly contested issue was whether common issues predominate over individual issues in regard to Defendant's statute of limitations defense. Plaintiffs asserted that the statute of limitations was tolled because Defendant actively concealed information regarding the steering system tie rods from the class. Plaintiffs emphasized that they were not pursuing a common law fraud claim, which might require that the "law of 51 jurisdictions" be applied. Defendant, on the other hand, asserted that the choice of law rule applicable to the Court's determination of the proper limitation period, and thus the appropriate requirements for tolling that provision, must be found in Oklahoma's "borrowing statute." That act provided that the period of limitation applicable to a claim accruing outside of this state shall be that prescribed either by the law of the place where the claim accrued or by the law of this state, whichever last bars the claim. Defendant argued that application of the borrowing statute will require the comparison of Oklahoma's limitation period for a warranty claim to the warranty limitation period of each state in which a class member resides.

The Court agreed with Defendant, but only in part. The borrowing statute was the right approach, but because Michigan law applied to the warranty claims of the class, the Court need only compare the limitation period under Michigan law to that of Oklahoma and apply the one which "last bars" the claims.

Third, Defendant argued that predominance is defeated by the need to question each class member individually as to whether the class member exercised reasonable diligence in learning of the allegedly concealed defect. Some class members might well have been more diligent than others, and some class members may have known more about the alleged defect than others, based on their own experience, or the experience of people they know. In contrast to the choice of law issue, the Oklahoma Supreme Court admitted that it had never been presented with the opportunity to address the class action predominance requirement in the context of an asserted fraudulent concealment exception to the statute of limitations, with its possible factual roots.

The Court rejected the defense position, finding that the essence of fraudulent concealment is knowledge in possession of the person committing the fraud. Thus, in this matter, the principal focus on the statute of limitations defense will be Defendant's conduct, claimed the Court. The "common questions" supposedly arising from Plaintiff's assertion of fraudulent concealment were (1) whether Defendant affirmatively concealed the alleged defect, and thus concealed a breach of warranty, and (2) whether the class members, by exercising due diligence, could have determined that a breach had occurred.

On the latter point, which seems to MassTortDefense to raise basic individual issues, the Court stressed that common evidence included whether knowledge of the alleged defect was readily available so as to put an ordinary prudent class member on inquiry. This, of course, begs the question whether, even if not everyone should have known, some class members knew or should have known prior to the statutory period. But the Court concluded that any question of variation in individual reliance is eclipsed by the common questions surrounding the allegation of fraudulent concealment. “The mere presence of individual issues does not defeat predominance.”

Underlying this opinion may have been the factor that the trial court capped the amount of damages compensation at $310 for the bolt fix repair and $400 for other steering system repairs caused by the bolt problem, meaning that many class members might not pursue individual actions. The limited legal theories raised by class plaintiffs also limited the defense opportunity to unearth predominating individual issues.