Morrison Foerster’s Class Dismissed blog provides insights, recommendations, and timely reports on the latest defense news, developments, and trends in the most current class actions lawsuits and product liability issues that affect consumer-facing companies. Through Class Dismissed, attorneys from our nationally recognized Consumer Class Action and Products Liability practices offer a real-time assessment of the developments in matters that are shaping the industry. This blog examines the full spectrum of consumer-related class action and product liability lawsuits ranging from false advertising, privacy, consumer product safety, ADA, food misbranding, TCPA, environment, retail, and government actions as well as nationwide and multidistrict litigation class actions.<h2>ABOUT MORRISON FOERSTER</h2>Morrison Foerster is a leading global law firm that transforms complexity into advantage for its clients. Our clients include some of the largest financial institutions, banks, consulting and accounting firms, and Fortune 100, technology, and life sciences companies. Highlighting the firm’s commitment to client service, leadership in market-changing deals and impact litigation, and values-based culture, Morrison Foerster has been repeatedly recognized as one of the top 10 firms on The American Lawyer’s A-List. Year after year, the firm receives significant recognition from Chambers and The Legal 500 across their various guides, including Global, USA, Asia‑Pacific, Europe, UK, Latin America, and FinTech Legal. Our lawyers passionately care about delivering legal excellence while living our values. Morrison Foerster has a long-standing commitment to creating a culture that respects and celebrates differences, while providing an inclusive environment. The firm has achieved Mansfield Certification Plus since 2018 as a result of successfully reaching at least 30 percent women, communities of color, and LGBTQ+ lawyer representation in a notable number of current leadership roles and committees. The firm also has a long history of commitment to the community and society through providing pro bono legal services, including litigating for civil rights and civil liberties, improving public education and fostering the wellbeing of children, advocating for veterans, promoting international human rights, enforcing the right to asylum, and safeguarding the environment.

Social

Search

Editors

hunt_adam_blog_150x150.png

hunt_adam_common_640x280.jpg

hunt_adam_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

hunt_adam_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

hunt_adam_social_600x600.jpg

Partner

Adam Hunt is a partner in the Litigation Department of Morrison Foerster’s New York office. His practice focuses on complex litigation, with an emphasis on class action and commercial litigation.

Adam Hunt

Alexandra Barlow is a partner in the Litigation Department of Morrison Foerster’s San Diego office.Alexandra litigates product liability matters involving medical devices, pharmaceuticals, consumer products, automobiles, and AI. Alexandra's litigation expertise spans the entire case life cycle in both state and federal courts. She handles all phases of discovery, including fact investigation and expert discovery. Alexandra has taken over twenty-five depositions, including experts, plaintiffs, treating physicians, and third-party witnesses. She drafts and argues motions of all types, including motions for summary judgment, motions to quash, and motions for preliminary injunction.Alexandra has significant trial experience. She has first-chaired a one-week jury trial and second-chaired a five‑week jury trial, both involving multiple claims and witnesses. She also has extensive experience in alternative dispute resolution, representing clients at mediations, mandatory settlement conferences, and early neutral evaluations.Alexandra enjoys tracking developments and keeping her clients updated on product liability and personal injury claims, frequently writing or presenting on emerging areas such as autonomous vehicles and smart devices. Alexandra’s experience also extends to professional liability, warranty claims, eminent domain, and construction law.Alexandra earned her J.D. from the University of San Diego School of Law. While in law school, the San Diego Law Review published her comment on the recovery of damages by plaintiffs in a persistent vegetative state, and she also served as a comment editor. She received her B.A. from the University of California, Los Angeles, where she majored in Political Science and minored in Spanish. A San Diego native, she attended a Spanish immersion school through the eighth grade. Alexandra is active in the San Diego community, advising students at a local college. She is also a member of several legal organizations in San Diego, including Lawyer’s Club, the Association of Business Trial Lawyers, and Wallace Inn of Court.

preece_alex_blog_150x150.png

preece_alex_common_640x280.jpg

preece_alex_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

preece_alex_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

preece_alex_social_600x600.jpg

Alexandra Barlow is a partner in the Litigation Department of Morrison Foerster’s San Diego office. Alexandra litigates product liability matters involving medical devices, pharmaceuticals, consumer products, automobiles, and AI. Alexandra’s litigation expertise spans the entire case life cycle in both state and federal courts. She handles all phases of discovery, including fact investigation and expert discovery. Alexandra has taken over twenty-five depositions, including experts, plaintiffs, treating physicians, and third-party witnesses. She drafts and argues motions of all types, including motions for summary judgment, motions to quash, and motions for preliminary injunction.

Alexandra Barlow is a partner in the Litigation Department of Morrison Foerster’s San Diego office. Alexandra litigates product liability matters involving medical devices, pharmaceuticals, automobiles, AI, and robotics. Alexandra's litigation expertise spans the entire case life cycle in both state and federal courts. She handles all phases of discovery, including fact investigation and expert discovery. Alexandra has taken over twenty-five depositions, including experts, plaintiffs, treating physicians, and third-party witnesses. She drafts and argues motions of all types, including motions for summary judgment, motions to quash, and motions for preliminary injunction.

Alexandra Barlow

<div class="videoWrapper"><iframe frameborder="0" class="sticky-video" allowfullscreen="1" title="Meet Penny Preovolos, Litigation Partner" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/hv7hYn-Bl7c?rel=0&showinfo=0;vq=hd1080" title="iframe"></iframe></div>Penelope has served as lead counsel in major consumer class actions and antitrust cases for more than 35 years, successfully representing high-profile defendants in antitrust, consumer fraud, and product defect matters. Her clients span a range of industries, including consumer electronics, technology, retail, publishing, food and beverage, cosmetics, and household products. According to Chambers USA, Penelope has a “great reputation for antitrust and product liability work” and is a “superb all-around antitrust lawyer.”Penelope was named the 2019 Antitrust Lawyer of the Year by the Antitrust, UCL, and Privacy Section of the California Lawyers Association. She was co-chair of MoFo’s antitrust practice for 14 years. She has served as chair of the Antitrust and Trade Regulation Section of the State Bar of California and as a member of the Ninth Circuit Advisory Committee on Local Rules and Operations. She is an editor of and frequent contributor to Morrison & Foerster’s <a href="https://classdismissed.mofo.com/">Class Dismissed blog</a>, as well as a frequent speaker about class action and antitrust issues.More About PenelopePenelope clerked for the Honorable Charles M. Merrill, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. She graduated cum laude from Harvard Law School, where she was executive editor of the Harvard Civil Rights – Civil Liberties Law Review. Penelope was a member of Phi Beta Kappa at the University of California, Berkeley. She was awarded the University Medal, the highest undergraduate honor at the university, as well as the English Departmental Citation (awarded to the outstanding graduate in that department).

preovolos_penelope_blog_150x150.png

preovolos_penelope_common_640x280.jpg

preovolos_penelope_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

preovolos_penelope_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

preovolos_penelope_social_600x600.jpg

Senior Counsel

Penelope has served as lead counsel in major consumer class actions and antitrust cases for more than 35 years, successfully representing high-profile defendants in antitrust, consumer fraud, and product defect matters. Her clients span a range of industries, including consumer electronics, technology, retail, publishing, food and beverage, cosmetics, and household products.

Penelope A. Preovolos

Zak is an associate in the Litigation Department in Morrison Foerster’s New York office.Zak’s practice focuses on class actions, commercial litigation, white collar defense, government investigations, and antitrust litigation and counseling. He has represented clients before federal and state courts in complex commercial matters, as well as in arbitration tribunals.Zak received his J.D. from New York University School of Law in 2018, where he was inducted into the Order of the Barristers. During law school, Zak also served as the Marden executive editor for the NYU Law Moot Court Board. In 2013, Zak received his B.A. and M.A. in political science from Yale University, receiving honors in his major and the Ellsworth Prize for Best Senior Essay in the Social Sciences.

newman_zak_blog_150x150.png

newman_zak_common_640x280.jpg

newman_zak_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

newman_zak_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

newman_zak_social_600x600.jpg

Associate

Zak Newman

Mitchell A. Hokanson is an associate in the Litigation Department of Morrison Foerster’s San Diego office.Mitchell’s practice focuses on commercial litigation and consumer class actions. He has extensive experience with civil litigation, including managing day-to-day strategy, propounding and responding to discovery, taking and defending depositions, and engaging in motion practice. He also has experience providing regulatory advice to clients, including pro bono partners and multinational corporations. Mitchell maintains an active pro bono practice.After law school, Mitchell worked as a judicial clerk for Justice Susan M. Carney of the Alaska Supreme Court, where he drafted bench memoranda and opinions on a wide range of state and federal law topics. Prior to joining MoFo, Mitchell worked for another international law firm, where he was a member of the Complex Civil Litigation practice group, in Los Angeles, California.Mitchell received his J.D. from Columbia Law School, where he was honored as a James Kent Scholar and Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar. While in law school he was the senior executive editor of the Columbia Journal of Environmental Law and worked as a judicial intern for Judge Sandra S. Ikuta of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and Judge George B. Daniels of the United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Prior to that, Mitchell earned his B.A. from Stanford University.

hokanson_mitchell_blog_150x150.png

hokanson_mitchell_common_640x280.jpg

hokanson_mitchell_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

hokanson_mitchell_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

hokanson_mitchell_social_600x600.jpg

Mitchell Hokanson

favicon.ico

favicon-16x16.png

favicon-32x32.png

apple-touch-icon.png

MoFo Favicons

Morrison Foerster’s Class Dismissed blog provides insights and reports on the latest news, developments, and trends that affect consumer-facing companies. Subscribe to receive the latest updates by attorneys from our nationally recognized Consumer Class Action and Product Liability practices.

Welcome to Class Dismissed

class-dismissed-welcome-image.jpeg

class-dismissed-welcome-image

Morrison Foerster’s Class Dismissed blog provides insights and reports on the latest news, developments, and trends that affect consumer-facing companies. 

Class Action

Blog - Terms of Use

Blog - Privacy Policy

Blog - Blog Disclaimer

Blog - Attorney Advertising

morrison-foerster-blog-logo.png

Brings together legal insights and in-depth analyses on trends and complex issues shaping the global technology industry.

MoFo Tech

Equips our clients with the most up-to-date and relevant information on employment and labor law issues.

Employment Law Commentary

Stay on top of emerging issues and stay informed of developments related to the law and business of social media.

Socially Aware

In-depth analysis of developments and trends impacting government contracting.

Government Contracts Insight

The latest news and insights from the nationally recognized Consumer Class Action and Product Liability practices of Morrison & Foerster.

Class Dismissed

  Linkedin

MoFo LinkedIN

Class Dismissed Blog - RSS

Stay Connected

By submitting your data to subscribe to this blog, you approved Morrison & Foerster LLP to email you future information about MoFo news and events. You may opt-out at any time by sending a request to <a href="mailto:mofonews@mofo.com">mofonews@mofo.com</a>. To learn more about how Morrison & Foerster LLP uses and protects your personal data, please view our <a href="https://www.mofo.com/about/privacy-policy.html">Privacy Policy</a> at <a href="https://www.mofo.com/">www.mofo.com</a>.

Never miss a post from Class Dismissed. Enter your email below to stay up-to-date.

Subscribe

Class Action and Product Insights for Your Business

Morrison Foerster - Footer

Blogs -  Home Button

Home

Blog - Topics

TCPA

Announcements & Press

Antitrust

Appellate & Supreme Court

Arbitration

Autonomous Vehicles & Robotics

Aviation & Drones

Class Certification

Consumer Products

Coronavirus (COVID-19)

CPSC

Drug & Medical Device

Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)

Environmental Law

False Advertising

FCRA

Food Misbranding

Government Actions

Internet of Things

Mass Torts

Pharmaceutical & Medical Devices

Privacy

Product Liability

Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act)

Retail

Trials

Topics

Blog - Editors

Blog - About

About

Blog - Subscribe

Adam J. Hunt

More

Alexandra Preece Barlow

Mitchell A. Hokanson

Client Alert: Jury Returns Verdict in “Manufactured in the USA” False Advertising Case

Everyone Please Stand: Supreme Court to Consider Standing Requirements for Class Actions, With the Potential to Resolve Long-standing Multi-circuit Split.

A New Era of Climate Accountability: State Climate Superfund Laws Gain Momentum

APHIS Reinstates Legacy Biotechnology Regulations: Implications for CRISPR-Edited Plants

California Updates Prop 65 Short-Form Warning Requirements

A year from now, dramatic changes to California’s Proposition 65 warning regulations take full effect. The new regulations (formally published by the State in August 2016) significantly alter the “safe harbor” rules for providing Prop 65 warnings. Companies that have not yet started preparing for the implications of these new rules will need to do so before the new regulations go into full effect on August 30, 2018.Under Prop 65, businesses with 10 or more employees must provide “clear and reasonable warning”  before knowingly and intentionally exposing individuals in California to a chemical listed by the state as known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. The Prop 65 regulations provide a safe harbor for warning language and methods of transmission officially deemed “clear and reasonable.” That safe harbor will shrink significantly under the new regulations. A generic Prop 65 warning that does not identify a specific chemical will no longer be sufficient in most circumstances. Many warnings will also have to contain the exclamation point within a triangle symbol shown left and be given in multiple languages. Finally, virtually all warnings will need to include either the URL “<a href="http://P65Warnings.ca.gov">P65Warnings.ca.gov</a>,” or the food-product-specific “<a href="http://P65Warnings.ca.gov/food">P65Warnings.ca.gov/food</a>.”

170801-new-proposition-65-warning-regulations_thumbnail.jpg

Warning: New Proposition 65 Warning Regulations Taking Effect

WARNING: Proposition 65 Farce About to Repeat Itself for Vulnerable Foods and Flavorings

170801-new-proposition-65-warning-regulations_image.jpg

A year from now, dramatic changes to California’s Proposition 65 warning regulations take full effect. The new regulations (formally published by the State in A

Warning: New Proposition 65 Warning Regulations Taking Effect

At the midpoint of 2017, we look back on the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission’s activity under the new administration, including how recalls and penalties stack up against previous years, new focal points for safety initiatives and enforcement and an interesting development from the White House that could affect the CPSC’s regulatory approach in the future.The most significant developments we expect in the coming months are a reversal in the trend of enforcement and steep penalties. Consumer products providers are increasingly willing to voluntarily recall products rather than wait for the CPSC to initiate an investigation. It would not be surprising if this pattern of self-regulation resulted in more cooperation between the CPSC and consumer products providers and, ultimately, an overall reduction in civil penalties.Please see our full article as published on <a href="https://media2.mofo.com/v3/assets/blt5775cc69c999c255/blt87ff5299fa271ad4/6273155f4d9f89297129014b/170725-law360-shift-in-cpsc-leadership.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Law360</a>.

Fertility Center Litigation

Fitbit

MicroPort

Leading Healthcare, Pharmaceutical, and Medical Device Company

Lethal Injection Matters – Major Pharmaceutical Company

Pain Pump Matters – Large Pharmaceutical Company

Major Technology Company

Leading Chemical Company

Security Device Company

In re Air Crash Near Peixoto de Azevedo, Brazil

bosman_erin_blog_150x150.png

bosman_erin_common_640x280.jpg

bosman_erin_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

bosman_erin_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

bosman_erin_social_600x600.jpg

Co-Chair, Litigation Department

Erin Bosman is the global co-chair of Morrison Foerster’s litigation department. Erin is also the founder and co-head of the Artificial Intelligence group and former chair of the Complex Litigation + Advisement practice group. Clients value her business strategy, seeking her comprehensive counsel throughout the product life cycle, especially in high-stakes litigation and product recalls.

Erin M. Bosman

Erin Bosman is the Global Co-Chair of Morrison Foerster’s Litigation Department. Erin is also the founder and co-head of the Artificial Intelligence Group and former chair of the Complex Litigation + Advisement Practice Group. Clients value her business strategy, seeking her comprehensive counsel throughout the product life cycle, especially in high-stakes litigation and product recalls.

Erin Bosman

An orthopedic implant company

A children&rsquo;s monthly subscription service product

A fertility company

A major technology company

A smart fitness equipment company

park_julie_blog_150x150.png

park_julie_common_640x280.jpg

park_julie_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

park_julie_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

park_julie_social_600x600.jpg

Julie Park provides analytic and strategic counsel for issues in product life cycle, product liability and defective products, consumer class actions, and more.

Julie Park

Julie Park | Product Liability Lawyer

Julie Park protects her clients’ products no matter what kind of product issue they face—whether it is planning for new product development, recalling an existing product, or defending clients against product liability or consumer class actions. Drawing on her deep technical and legal expertise, Julie counsels clients on consumer product safety regulation and pharmaceutical and medical device preemption while also managing complex and multijurisdictional litigation both in state and federal court.

Julie Y. Park

shutterstock_500659180_small_thumbnail.jpg

Shift In CPSC Leadership Means More Changes To Come

Shift In CPSC Leadership Means More Changes To Come

shutterstock_500659180_small_image.jpg

At the midpoint of 2017, we look back on the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission’s activity under the new administration, including how recalls and penaltie

In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016), the United States Supreme Court held that a defendant’s unaccepted offer of complete relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 did not moot a class plaintiff’s claim or require dismissal of the action.  However, the Supreme Court expressly left open the question of whether an unaccepted offer plus a tender of payment of the full amount of the plaintiff’s individual claim could moot a class plaintiff’s claim or require dismissal of the action.  (See our prior client alert on Campbell-Ewald).Testing an Issue Left Open By Campbell-Ewald, Defendant Tries to Moot Plaintiff’s ClaimOn June 20, 2017, the Seventh Circuit became the latest court to weigh in on the question left open by Campbell-Ewald.  In Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., No. 15 C 11038 (EEC) (7th Cir. June 20, 2017), the Court considered whether an unaccepted offer of judgment and tender of payment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 67 to fully settle—and thereby moot—a plaintiff’s individual claims would also moot putative class action claims.  Relying on Campbell-Ewald, the Court held that an unaccepted offer of judgment could not be forced on an unwilling party under Rule 67 or 68, even if the offer was accompanied by a tender of payment.On December 8, 2015, plaintiff Fulton Dental, LLC filed a class action complaint against defendant Bisco, Inc., alleging it received an unsolicited fax from Bisco in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).  On January 18, 2016, two days before the Campbell-Ewald decision, Bisco made a Rule 68 offer of judgment to plaintiff to settle its individual claims, plus injunctive relief, fees, and costs.  Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling that “an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff’s case,” plaintiff rejected the offer.  Seeking to test the issue left open by Campbell-Ewald, Bisco then moved for leave to deposit $3,600—the maximum possible damages plaintiff could receive, plus fees and costs—with the district court, and then argued that plaintiff’s claim was moot.Expanding on Campbell-Ewald, Court Finds Settlement Cannot Be Forced on Unwilling Party under Rule 67The Seventh Circuit rejected Bisco’s argument that Campbell-Ewald’s express reservation of the issue of whether a tender of payment would moot a class plaintiff’s claim “meant to say that a proposed settlement structured this way could be forced on a plaintiff.”  The Court found this to be “a risky assumption,” and decided in favor of the plaintiff, holding that under Campbell-Ewald, “an unaccepted offer is not binding on the offeree,” even if a tender of payment is offered.  The Court found Bisco’s offer under Rule 67, not Rule 68, was no reason to diverge from the Supreme Court’s holding. Instead, the Court noted that Campbell-Ewald “drew no distinction between unaccepted Rule 68 settlement offers and other unaccepted settlement or contract offers.”  Thus, the Court saw “no principled distinction between attempting to force a settlement on an unwilling party through Rule 68, as in Campbell-Ewald, and attempting to force a settlement on an unwilling party through Rule 67.”TakeawayFulton is one of several post-Campbell-Ewald cases rejecting defendants’ attempts to moot a putative class action by mooting the named plaintiff’s individual claims.  See, e.g., Weitzner v. Sanofi Pasteur, Inc., No. 14-3423, 2016 WL 1359220 (3d Cir. Apr. 6, 2016) (see our Weitzner post); Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. Graduation Source, LLC, No. 14-cv-3232 (NSR), 2016 WL 872914, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2016); Brady v. Basic Research, L.L.C., 312 F.R.D. 304, 306 (E.D.N.Y. 2016)  (see our Brady post).However, a judge in the Southern District of New York saw things differently in Leyse v. Lifetime Entertainment Services, LLC, No. 13 Civ. 574 (AKH), 2016 WL 1253607 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2016), holding that a defendant’s payment of plaintiff’s individual claims plus court costs required entry of judgment.  (For more information on Leyse, see our post <a href="http://classdismissed.mofo.com/tcpa/point-counterpoint-new-york-federal-court-holds-payment-of-plaintiffs-claim-ends-lawsuit-under-campbell-ewald/">here</a>).

gettyimages-493852817_small_thumbnail.jpg

A Twist on Campbell-Ewald: Seventh Circuit Rejects Effort to Moot Class Action Claims Under F.R.C.P. 67

A Twist on Campbell-Ewald:  Seventh Circuit Rejects Effort to Moot Class Action Claims Under F.R.C.P. 67

gettyimages-493852817_small_image.jpg

In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016), the United States Supreme Court held that a defendant’s unaccepted offer of complete relief under Federal

The Tenth Circuit recently upheld a Utah district court’s finding that a branded drug manufacturer could not be held liable for failing to warn consumers about alleged birth defect risks when the FDA had previously rejected a citizen’s petition calling for the same warnings.  Cerveny v. Aventis, Inc., No. 16-4050 (10th Cir. May 2, 2017).Factual BackgroundPlaintiffs (mother, father, and their child) alleged that the fertility drug Clomid led to the child’s birth defects due to the mother’s use of the drug before becoming pregnant.  They sued under Utah tort claims, including failure to warn, breach of implied warranty, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud.Relying on the doctrine of impossibility preemption, the district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, holding that, because the FDA “would not have approved the drug warnings that the Cervenys allege are required under Utah law,” it was impossible for Aventis to comply with both FDA regulations and state law.On appeal, the plaintiffs relied on a 1987 proposed FDA warning that “Clomid may cause fetal harm when administered to pregnant women.”  Although Aventis did not adopt the FDA’s proposed warning, and even though it only applied to those who took the drug while pregnant (unlike the plaintiff in this case), the Cervenys contended that (1) the proposed warning demonstrated the FDA’s willingness to approve warnings for women taking Clomid before becoming pregnant, and (2) Ms. Cerveny would not have taken Clomid before her pregnancy if Aventis had used the proposed warning.Impossibility PreemptionThe Cerveny court began with a discussion of basic preemption principles.  The court explained that federal law will preempt a state law when (1) the language of the federal law reveals an express congressional intent to preempt state law (express preemption); (2) federal regulation is so all-encompassing that Congress must have intended to leave no room for a state to supplement it (field preemption); or (3) compliance with both the federal and state laws is a physical impossibility (conflict preemption).  When a state’s regulations for drug labels conflict with the FDA’s, preemption issues arise.Impossibility preemption is at play when state law is preempted because compliance with both the federal and state laws is a physical impossibility – the laws are inapposite such that complying with state law necessarily results in a violation of federal law.  In Cerveny, Aventis made that very argument: it only needed to comply with the FDA regulations and not Utah state law because complying with both would be impossible.In Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009), the Supreme Court established a loose framework for determining when federal law could preempt state law failure-to-warn claims against branded drug manufacturers.  Specifically, the defendant must present “clear evidence” that the FDA would have rejected the desired label change in order to preempt a state law failure-to-warn claim.  Id. at 571.Wyeth did not define “clear evidence,” but instead left the question to the lower courts.  A recent Third Circuit case interpreted Wyeth’s not-so-clear “clear evidence” language.  According to In re Fosamax Alendronate Sodium Prods. Liab. Litig., 852 F.3d 268, 285 (3rd Cir. 2017), the phrase “clear evidence” sets forth a standard of proof synonymous with “clear and convincing evidence” and involves a question of fact rather than a question of law.In order to preempt the state law failure-to-warn claim, a manufacturer needs to convince a factfinder that it was “highly probable” that the FDA would not have approved a change to the drug’s label.  The Cerveny court adopted this interpretation.The Court’s “Clear Evidence” AnalysisAs clear evidence that the FDA would not have approved plaintiffs’ suggested warnings, Aventis pointed to (1) the FDA’s history of approving Clomid for use by women before becoming pregnant, and (2) the FDA’s rejection of a citizen’s petition.Although the court determined that Clomid’s regulatory history did not, in and of itself, constitute clear evidence, the FDA’s rejection of a citizen’s petition did provide the requisite evidence.  In 2007, a citizen petition was filed demanding stronger Clomid warnings regarding the potential risks of fetal harm when a woman takes Clomid prior to becoming pregnant.  The FDA first denied the petition in 2009 and in 2012 declined to reconsider its original denial, reasoning that the original denial had “appropriately applied the standards in the [Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act] and FDA regulations regarding drug safety, warnings, and potential safety hazards.”The standard used by the FDA in rejecting the citizen’s petition was the same standard the FDA would have applied in evaluating a proposed label change to Clomid.  Because the FDA concluded in evaluating the citizen’s petition that the requested additional warnings were unjustified as to risks related to taking Clomid prior to pregnancy, the court determined that, had Aventis sought FDA approval to include stronger pre-pregnancy warnings, the FDA would have denied the request, just as it did the citizen’s petition.The plaintiffs argued that when the FDA considers proposed label changes, it treats manufacturers more favorably than citizen’s petitions, which “leads the FDA to accord greater deference to changes proposed” by manufacturers than those proposed in citizen petitions.  In rejecting this argument, the court explained that the FDA standard for revising a warning label “does not discriminate” between proposals submitted by manufacturers and proposals submitted by citizens.The Cervenys attempted to use the 1987 FDA proposed label change regarding use during pregnancy to argue that Ms. Cerveny would not have taken Clomid prior to becoming pregnant if Aventis had adopted the 1987 proposed label.  They argued that the proposed label would have warned women more directly about the potential harm to a fetus when a woman takes Clomid during pregnancy.  The district court agreed with Aventis that, even if Aventis accepted the proposed label change, Ms. Cerveny took Clomid prior to her pregnancy and therefore the label would not have applied to her.  Under Utah law, a plaintiff cannot allege as a defect in a label a warning that would not have applied to her.Aventis moved for summary judgment based solely on preemption.  While the Cervenys urged the district court to ignore Aventis’s state-law argument, the district court granted Aventis’ motion for summary judgment without explaining why or how a state law defense fell within the scope of the motion that was based solely on preemption.The appellate court remanded the issue because the district court did not “consider whether it could rest on [state] law when deciding a summary judgment motion that had relied solely on federal preemption.”  This leaves open the possibility that this claim could similarly be rejected based on federal preemption at the district court level.Looking ForwardThis ruling clarifies a defendant’s burden of proof in establishing a preemption defense.  It establishes that the FDA’s denial of a sufficiently similar citizen’s petition satisfies the clear-evidence standard required to successfully preempt a failure-to-warn claim.  Therefore, branded drug manufacturers have an additional evidentiary tool even when no other form of FDA decision-making exists to demonstrate that the FDA would have rejected a label change.Ultimately, if other circuits follow the Tenth Circuit’s lead, pharmaceutical companies may no longer need to demonstrate an attempt to provide the kind of warning allegedly required under state law.  We anticipate that going forward parties will disagree on the issue of how similar a citizen’s petition needs to be in order to have this preemptive effect.  Identical?  Virtually identical?  Substantially similar?  In Cerveny, the Tenth Circuit acknowledged that the citizen’s petition was “virtually identical” to the warnings the Cerveny’s advocated; however, we anticipate that courts may still find a preemptive effect when a citizen’s petition is substantially similar to proposed warnings.  So long as the substance of the proposed warning is the same, as well as its effect on the consuming public, it is unlikely that a decision will turn on semantics.*Co-author Karina Pundeff is a summer associate in our San Diego office.

gettyimages-172748011_small_thumbnail.jpg

FDA’s Denial of Citizen’s Petition “Clear” Enough for Preemption of Failure-to-Warn Claims

FDA’s Denial of Citizen’s Petition “Clear” Enough for Preemption of Failure-to-Warn Claims

gettyimages-172748011_small_image.jpg

The Tenth Circuit recently upheld a Utah district court’s finding that a branded drug manufacturer could not be held liable for failing to warn consumers about 

California took two important steps forward to implement its new Green Chemistry Initiative, also known as the Safer Consumer Products (SCP) Program, to regulate and encourage replacement of toxic chemicals in consumer products.  First, it adopted new regulations for its first priority product, children’s foam-padded sleeping products that contain the flame retardants TDCPP or TCEP, including:<div class="container-fluid main"><div class="row body"><div class="body-container "><div class="col-md-8 col-md-push-2 col-sm-12 col-xs-12"><ul><li>Nap mats and cots</li><li>Sleep positioners</li><li>Travel beds</li><li>Bassinet foam</li><li>Portable crib mattresses</li><li>Playpens</li><li>Car bed pads</li></ul></div></div></div></div>

shutterstock_113396650-converted-01_thumbnail.jpg

California Adopts First Green Chemistry Regulations for Children’s Nap Mats and Provides Important Guidance for Its Alternatives Analysis

California Proposes Next Group of Priority Products Under Its Green Chemistry Initiative

shutterstock_113396650-converted-01_image.jpg

California took two important steps forward to implement its new Green Chemistry Initiative, also known as the Safer Consumer Products (SCP) Program, to regulat

California Adopts First Green Chemistry Regulations for Children’s Nap Mats and Provides Important Guidance for Its Alternatives Analysis

*This is an update to a previous post on the Class Dismissed blog, seen <a href="http://classdismissed.mofo.com/consumer-products/the-revival-of-ecj-lawsuits-sweet-tooth-for-plaintiffs-or-toothless-claims/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">here</a>.On June 8, 2017, Judge Carney dismissed Plaintiff’s class action Complaint because she failed to provide specifics about her own Sports Beans purchase.  The court held that the Complaint was implausible because it only provides a cursory and formulaic recitation that Ms. Gomez purchased the Product relying on Jelly Belly’s representations regarding the ingredients of the Product, and that but for those representations, she would not have purchased or paid as much for the Product.  See Gomez v. Jelly Belly Candy Company et al., No. EDCV 17-00575-CJC(FFMx) (C.D. Cal. June 8, 2017) (Dkt. No. 17) (order granting motion to dismiss with leave to amend).  The Judge noted that “[a]bsent from the complaint are any factual allegations concerning the circumstances of Gomez’s purchase of the product, how she intended to use the product, whether she in fact expected a sugar-free product, whether she thought ‘evaporated cane juice’ was juice as opposed to sugar, and whether she consumed the product.”  Id.Judge Carney also struck Ms. Gomez’s prayer for injunctive relief, finding that it is impossible for her to be deceived in the future by Jelly Belly’s use of the term ECJ, because she now knows that it really means “sugar.”  Judge Carney accordingly joins the list of district court judges who have refused to allow plaintiffs to pursue claims for injunctive relief given their awareness of the misrepresentations alleged in their complaints.The court granted leave to amend and Ms. Gomez filed an Amended Complaint on June 22, 2017.  The Amended Complaint provides more details regarding the circumstances surrounding Ms. Gomez’s purchase and consumption of the Sports Beans; it is unclear whether these allegations will survive another motion to dismiss should Jelly Belly renew its challenge.

jellybeans-shutterstock_291088268-600px_thumbnail.jpg

UPDATE: The Revival of ECJ Lawsuits*

jellybeans-shutterstock_291088268-600px_image.jpg

*This is an update to a previous post on the Class Dismissed blog, seen here. On June 8, 2017, Judge Carney dismissed Plaintiff’s class action Complaint because

UPDATE: The Revival of ECJ Lawsuits*

There has been a lot said already about the effect on product liability (especially drug) cases and “mass actions” as a result of the United States Supreme Court’s June 17, 2017 decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, No. 16-466.  But what about consumer class actions?  California is a destination venue not just for mass tort cases.  It is also the principal destination of litigation-tourism for consumer class actions that seek nationwide classes.  For example, a recent Chamber of Commerce study reports that three-fourths of food-related consumer class actions are filed in just four states, with California (36%), New York (22%), Florida (12%), and Illinois (7%) leading the way.<a name="_ftnref1" href="#_ftn1">[1]</a>  Does Bristol-Myers have anything to teach us about the continuing viability of those suits?It does.  If you are a non-resident sued in a nationwide class action (and/or suit is brought against you on behalf of one or multiple state-only non-resident plaintiff classes), Bristol-Myers may provide relief.  The rationale of the eight-to-one decision is grounded in traditional concepts of personal jurisdiction, but make no mistake: the real message of Bristol-Myers is its rejection of “litigation tourism,” and that rationale will apply to putative nationwide consumer class actions brought against non-resident defendants.  The decision could affect hundreds of existing class action cases.  This post explains.Bristol-Myers In Brief.In Bristol-Meyers, 678 plaintiffs from 34 states (including 86 from California) brought claims in California state court alleging that they were injured by Plavix, a prescription drug manufactured by the defendant.  In the superior court, Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), an out-of-state company, moved to quash service of summons, arguing that the California court lacked personal jurisdiction as to claims brought by the non-California plaintiffs.  The superior court denied the motion, finding that BMS was subject to general jurisdiction in California.  The California Court of Appeal disagreed that BMS was subject to general jurisdiction but found that California courts had specific jurisdiction over the nonresidents’ claims against BMS.At the California Supreme Court, BMS argued that the non-California plaintiffs’ claims were not causally linked to BMS’s conduct in the state.  A divided California Supreme Court rejected BMS’s “causal connection” argument, applied a “sliding scale” test to determine BMS’s relation to the forum, and found that BMS’s “nationwide marketing, promotion, and distribution” of the challenged product created a “substantial nexus” between the nonresident plaintiffs’ claims and BMS’s forum activities.The United States Supreme Court overruled the California Supreme Court’s finding of specific jurisdiction over BMS, stating that the “sliding scale approach” to personal jurisdiction in California had “no support” in the Court’s past decisions.  Rather, specific personal jurisdiction requires an “adequate link” between the nonresident plaintiff’s claims and the forum state; Bristol-Myers rejects the California Supreme Court’s “sliding scale” approach to personal jurisdiction.  The firm published a Client Alert summarizing the decision, providing expert analysis and offering key takeaways on June 20, 2017.  Because there was no “adequate link” between the company’s contacts related to Plavix in the state and the plaintiffs’ claims, specific jurisdiction over non-resident claims was inappropriate.A Blow to “Litigation Tourism”Bristol-Meyers delivers a serious blow to “litigation tourism”—the all-too-common practice of class action plaintiffs bringing claims in the most favorable venue regardless of residency or company contacts with the forum.  While litigation-tourism has been most prevalent in food misbranding cases, especially to California, it extends to all kinds of class actions, including product liability and defect cases, privacy cases, financial services litigation, and cases brought under federal statues such as the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  After Bristol-Myers, tenuous connections to the forum won’t cut it, and non-resident plaintiffs can no longer piggyback on the claims of resident plaintiffs against an out-of-state defendant to remain in the forum.  Rather, to sue in a forum other than the plaintiffs’ or defendant’s state of residence, plaintiffs must now demonstrate an “adequate link” between the defendant’s conduct in that forum and their claims.Recharging the Defense Against Plaintiffs Seeking to Import Out-of-State LawBristol-Myers is not just consistent with prior cases addressing plaintiff attempts to apply out-of-state law in a particular forum; it potentially provides those decisions with a jolt of energy.  California courts have declined to apply materially different state law to cases involving geographically diverse classes.  See, e.g., Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012).  Bristol-Myers potentially bolsters this principle by giving it a due process backing.TakeawaysBristol-Myers has the potential to affect numerous pending and future class actions.  Plaintiffs will need to carefully consider the contours of their class vis-à-vis the defendant they choose to sue and the forum in which they choose to litigate or face a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.  The question for defendants is one of strategy: what are the consequences of such a motion?  Plaintiffs have various options: they may file a nationwide class action where the defendant resides (if the defendant is resident in the United States and its state of residence permits nationwide classes); they may file actions in all or most states where the purported class members reside; or they may limit their class to California residents.  If plaintiffs file actions in multiple jurisdictions, the end result may be MDL practice to once again coordinate the action in a single court.  Defendants thus will want to evaluate all the circumstances of their particular case in deciding whether to file a Bristol-Myers motion.<a name="_ftn1" href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> See <a href="http://www.instituteforlegalreform.com/uploads/sites/1/TheFoodCourtPaper_Pages.pdf">http://www.instituteforlegalreform.com/uploads/sites/1/TheFoodCourtPaper_Pages.pdf</a>, at p. 2.*Co-author Spencer Sean McManus was a summer associate in our San Francisco office.