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

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

Partner

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

<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

Claudia focuses her practice on the defense of consumer class actions and on complex commercial litigation, including unfair business competition, false advertising, product liability, and privacy matters. She is currently representing numerous consumer goods manufacturers and retailers in false advertising and mislabeling class action lawsuits. Claudia also regularly counsels clients in the food, cosmetics, retail, and technology industries. She represents companies in false advertising disputes before the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc.<h5>More about Claudia</h5>Claudia is active in MoFo’s pro bono efforts, and recently traveled to El Paso, Texas, to work with families separated and detained at the border. She is also supervising a pro bono collaboration with Equal Rights Advocates, a nonprofit fighting for gender justice in work places and schools across the country. The initiative will help students who have been victims of sexual assault, attempted assault, or harassment find support and seek justice. Claudia is also a board member of Bay Area Legal Aid and a former board member of Equal Rights Advocates. Claudia is an editor and frequent contributor to MoFo’s <a href="https://classdismissed.mofo.com/">Class Dismissed</a> blog, which provides reports about the latest defense news, developments, and trends in class action lawsuits and product liability issues that affect consumer-facing companies. Her perspectives are also respected in the larger legal community: Claudia has published articles about class action and false advertising issues, and is a co-author of Chapter 7 — “Unfair Competition in California Business Litigation 2016” — of The Recorder. She also regularly speaks at conferences on class action and advertising trends. Claudia is currently serving as a Lawyer Representative for the Northern District of California. She received her J.D. degree in 2004 from Berkeley Law (Boalt Hall School of Law), where she was an associate editor of the Berkeley Technology Law Journal.

vetesi_claudia_blog_150x150.png

vetesi_claudia_common_640x280.jpg

vetesi_claudia_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

vetesi_claudia_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

vetesi_claudia_social_600x600.jpg

Claudia focuses her practice on the defense of consumer class actions and on complex commercial litigation, including unfair business competition, false advertising, product liability, and privacy matters. She is currently representing numerous consumer goods manufacturers and retailers in false advertising and mislabeling class actions.

Claudia M. Vetesi

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

Adam J. 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.Mr. Hunt has extensive experience representing consumer products companies, financial institutions, and technology firms in class action cases and complex commercial disputes before state and federal trial courts, as well as in arbitrations. Clients seek Mr. Hunt’s counsel for his creative, strategic thinking in high-stakes, high-profile matters. He has represented clients facing claims under false advertising, antitrust, and privacy laws throughout the country, securing wins at the pleading stage, summary judgment, and trial, in addition to negotiating favorable settlements, often early in the case. Representative experience includes successfully securing rulings dismissing two putative false advertising class action cases against one of the best-known consumer electronics companies in the world; obtaining a complete win on summary judgment for a major shipping and logistics company in a multimillion-dollar commercial dispute; appearing as counsel at trial for a leading financial institution in a $100 million commercial dispute, winning a bench trial verdict; and prevailing on motions to dismiss false advertising class actions against a leading Greek yogurt company.Mr. Hunt is also an editor of the firm’s <a href="https://classdismissed.mofo.com/" target="_self">Class Dismissed blog</a>, which provides insights, recommendations, and timely reports on the latest defense news, developments, and trends in the most current class action lawsuits that affect consumer-facing companies.Mr. Hunt maintains an active pro bono practice and is the recipient of the New York State Bar Association’s 2017 President’s Pro Bono Service Award for the First Judicial Department, the 2018 Public Service Award from New York University School of Law, and Morrison Foerster’s Kathi Pugh Award for Pro Bono Services.Mr. Hunt received his B.A. with honors from Swarthmore College and his J.D. cum laude from New York University.

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

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

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

More

Alexandra Preece Barlow

Adam J. Hunt

The Future of Section 230: Protection Against Product Liability Claims?

New Wave of PFAS Legislation Aimed at Consumer Products

CPSC Releases Annual Report on Deaths and Injuries Involving Nursery Products

CPSC Proposes New Safety Rules for Infant Rockers

CPSC Commissioners Abstain from Retracting Infant Sleep Product Statements

LinkedIN

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 12:00 pm, Morrison & Foerster partner Purvi Patel will be presenting at The Bar Association of San Francisco (BASF) CLE program “False Advertising Class Actions – Practitioner’s Guide to Class Certification, Damages and Trial.” Ms. Patel and her fellow panelists will discuss new developments and tips regarding prosecuting, defending and resolving these types of disputes. Additional topics will include strategies in prosecuting and defending class certification; how to present or challenge class-wide proof of damages; and positioning the case for trial and/or resolution.The program will be held at the BASF Conference Center in San Francisco, CA. For more information and to register please click <a href="http://www.sfbar.org/calendar/eventdetail.aspx?id=G173110/G173110">here</a>.

patel_purvi_blog_150x150.png

patel_purvi_common_640x280.jpg

patel_purvi_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

patel_purvi_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

patel_purvi_social_600x600.jpg

Purvi G. Patel is the former managing partner of the Los Angeles Office. She represents retail, e-commerce, and other businesses in significant advertising, unfair competition, consumer fraud, and privacy 

Purvi G. Patel

Purvi G. Patel defends retail, e-commerce, and other businesses in significant advertising, unfair competition, consumer fraud, and privacy matters. She has built a robust practice defending household names in complex and class action litigation in federal and state courts across the country, winning motions to dismiss, defeating class certification, and securing summary disposition in several multi-million dollar lawsuits. Purvi is a strategic and practical thinker who is in tune with her clients’ priorities, which leads to successful outcomes both inside and outside the courthouse.

Purvi Patel

gavel_600px_thumbnail.jpg

Speaking Engagement: False Advertising Class Actions – Practitioner’s Guide to Class Certification, Damages and Trial

Speaking Engagement: False Advertising Class Actions – Practitioner’s Guide to Class Certification, Damages and Trial

gavel_600px_image.jpg

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 12:00 pm, Morrison & Foerster partner Purvi Patel will be presenting at The Bar Association of San Francisco (BASF) CLE program “

Does a federal court have jurisdiction to review an order denying class certification after the named plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss their claims with prejudice? That is the question the Supreme Court will consider in Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, Docket No. 15-457. Class action plaintiffs have increasingly relied on this tactic to obtain immediate appellate review of district court denials of class certification decisions, even where the Court of Appeals has denied discretionary review under Rule 23(f). The Supreme Court’s decision in Baker will determine whether plaintiffs may continue this practice.Baker Background.  The Baker case concerns a challenge to Microsoft’s Xbox 360 game console. A group of plaintiffs filed an action in the Western District of Washington in 2007, alleging that the Xbox drive scratched game disks during normal game play. The district court denied certification, finding that only a small percentage of the consoles actually manifested the defect, and that determining whether scratching resulted from a defect versus misuse would require individual inquires. The plaintiffs filed a 23(f) petition with the Ninth Circuit, but the Ninth Circuit denied the petition.In 2011, the Baker plaintiffs—who had opted out of the original action—filed a virtually identical lawsuit in the same District, arguing that an intervening Ninth Circuit decision required a different result. The district court disagreed, striking Baker’s class allegations.  Plaintiffs again filed a 23(f) petition, which the Ninth Circuit again denied.The Baker plaintiffs then voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice. Their express purpose was to obtain immediate Ninth Circuit review of the district court’s class certification order.The Ninth Circuit Reviews the Case.  Plaintiffs filed an appeal from the court’s final judgment, challenging the court’s class certification decision. Microsoft argued that permitting the appeal allowed plaintiffs to end run Rule 23(f), which expressly governs appellate review of class certification decisions and gives the appellate court discretion to grant or deny interlocutory appeals of such decisions. The Supreme Court in Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463 (1978), rejected former decisions requiring federal courts to accept immediate appeals of class certification denials to avoid the “death knell” of class claims, finding that the benefit to plaintiffs was outweighed by the burden on judicial resources in requiring immediate review. Congress then adopted Rule 23(f) in 1998 as a compromise to address the “death knell” issue, permitting plaintiffs to petition a Court of Appeals to grant discretionary, interlocutory review for any reason—including because the costs of litigation exceed the plaintiff’s individual claim—while at the same time rejecting immediate appeals as of right from class certification decisions.The Ninth Circuit ignored Microsoft’s arguments. Relying on its prior decision in Berger v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 741 F.3d 1061 (9th Circ. 2014), the court focused on the existence of an actual controversy, stating that “‘in the absence of a settlement, a stipulation that leads to a dismissal with prejudice does not destroy the adversity in that judgment necessary to support an appeal….’” Baker v. Microsoft Corp., 797 F.3d 607, 612 (9th Cir. 2015), cert. granted in part, 136 S. Ct. 890, 193 L. Ed. 2d 783 (2016) (quoting Berger, 741 F.3d at 1064).Microsoft filed a petition for a writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court granted the petition on January 15, 2016.Supreme Court Status Update.  Microsoft and amici filed their opening briefs in March. Microsoft argues that Plaintiffs’ voluntary dismissal tactic violates Livesay and thwarts the discretionary review process created under Rule 23(f). Microsoft also argues that, because plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their case, there is no longer a case or controversy required for Article III jurisdiction and plaintiffs’ claims are moot.Plaintiffs filed their responding brief on May 16. They argue that prohibiting appeals of class certification decisions from voluntary dismissals will undermine class actions, as the cost of litigating individual claims vastly exceeds the minimal value of such claims. They contend that the Supreme Court’s holding in United States v. Procter & Gamble, 356 U.S. 677, 680-681 (1958), in which the Court rejected the defendant’s argument that it lacked jurisdiction because the United States had requested dismissal of its claims, forecloses Microsoft’s argument.  Microsoft’s “atextual” reading of Rule 23(f) and the “final judgment” rule under 28 U.S.C. 1291, Plaintiffs argue, fails as a matter of law and policy.Baker’s Bottom Line.  The Baker decision promises to clarify the viability of a current trend in class action litigation: lose class certification, dismiss the case with prejudice, and then file for appeal. While Plaintiffs risk losing their individual claims if their appeal is denied, they view the ability to obtain immediate review of the district court’s class certification decision as being worth it.If the Supreme Court in Baker sides with Microsoft, this practice will end. Moreover, the Supreme Court’s decision may impact current Ninth Circuit food misbranding decisions on appeal, such as Jones v. ConAgra, which reached the Ninth Circuit through this practice. An early decision in Microsoft’s favor could deprive the Ninth Circuit of jurisdiction to hear Jones and similar cases altogether.

Class Dismissed . . . But not Quite: Supreme Court to Review Appealability of Class Certification Denials When Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss Case

Does a federal court have jurisdiction to review an order denying class certification after the named plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss their claims with prejudice

Class Dismissed . . . But not Quite: Supreme Court to Review Appealability of Class Certification Denials When Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss Case

A California federal court recently denied a motion to certify a class of Kohl’s customers allegedly misled by false advertising, finding that plaintiff Wendy Chowning’s claim was a copycat of an earlier-filed case, Russell, et al. v. Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc., 5:15-cv-01143 (C.D. Cal., filed June 11, 2015). Chowning v. Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-08673 (C.D. Cal. April 1, 2016). Judge R. Gary Klausner of the Central District of California, presiding over both actions, initially ruled that the cases were not duplicative because the Chowning plaintiff sought injunctive relief and restitution, while the Russell class was certified for injunctive relief only.  However, after Kohl’s defeated the Chowning plaintiff’s restitution claims at summary judgment, the Court ruled that Chowning no longer differed from Russell, and dismissed the suit.Same Claims, Different Suits.  The Chowning and Russell plaintiffs presented nearly identical claims, only weeks apart. On June 11, 2015, the Russell plaintiffs filed their putative class action, alleging that Kohl’s comparative-pricing sales tags were a form of false advertising under California’s False Advertising Law (FAL) and Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The Russell plaintiffs claimed that Kohl’s exclusive-brand items displayed two price tags, (1) a “sale” price tag, and (2) a significantly higher “original” price tag, but that the items were never actually sold at the higher “original” price advertised. Instead, plaintiffs alleged, Kohl’s simultaneously displayed both tags to deceive plaintiffs and putative class members into thinking that the “original” price was the true price of the item, and induce them to purchase products at the purported “sale” price.The next month, on July 21, 2015, Wendy Chowning filed suit in the same court, alleging the same claims against Kohl’s under the FAL, UCL, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), and also seeking monetary restitution and injunctive relief.Chowning Initially Survives by Seeking Monetary Restitution.  Given the substantial overlap between the two cases, and Russell’s status as the first-filed case, Judge Klausner issued an order in the Chowning action to show cause why it should not be dismissed as duplicative. He declined to the dismiss the action, however, finding that Chowning’s relief sought—restitution in addition to injunctive relief—was sufficient to distinguish the case from Russell.Though the Russell plaintiffs initially had also sought restitution, Judge Klausner certified their class only as to injunctive relief, ruling that plaintiffs failed to meet their burden to present a viable damages model. Russell, et al. v. Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc., 5:15-cv-01143 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 4, 2015).Court Rejects Chowning’s Restitution Claims, Denies Class Certification, and Dismisses the Case.  Chowning’s distinguishing factor soon disappeared, however, when on March 15, 2016, Judge Klausner granted Kohl’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of restitution, finding that plaintiff’s proposed damages models did not provide a viable measure of restitution. According to the Court, even if Kohl’s did misrepresent the “original” price of an item, Kohl’s is not required to pay restitution as long as the retail value of the item is higher than the price charged. Chowning, et al. v. Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc., 2016 WL 1072129, at *12 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2016).In light of this ruling, Judge Klausner found that Chowning was no longer meaningfully different from Russell. Thus, on April 1, 2016, Judge Klausner denied the Chowning plaintiff’s motion for class certification, finding that “the same facts, legal arguments, evidence, and remedies are implicated in both [cases].” The putative Chowning class would therefore be adequately represented as members of the injunctive relief class certified in the Russell action. The court dismissed the case.Takeaway.Chowning is helpful to defendants fighting copycat actions on identical or similar issues. It demonstrates that, where both the underlying facts and requested remedies in two cases are the same, the first-filed case will win the day.

Been There, Done That: Kohl’s Wins Dismissal of Copycat False Advertising Class Action

A California federal court recently denied a motion to certify a class of Kohl’s customers allegedly misled by false advertising, finding that plaintiff Wendy C

Been There, Done That: Kohl’s Wins Dismissal of Copycat False Advertising Class Action

On March 21, 2016, the Eleventh Circuit vacated a district court’s decision to grant class certification to California and Texas consumers claiming that Electrolux washing machines have a design defect that makes them prone to staining clothes and leaving them with a moldy smell, finding plaintiffs failed to satisfy the predominance requirement. Brown, et al. v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., No. 15-11455, 2016 WL 1085517, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 5112.Consumers Target “Smelly” Washers.  Over the past several years, consumers across the country have filed class actions against manufacturers of allegedly “smelly” front-loading washing machines. The lawsuit against Electrolux involves claims under two state consumer protection statutes (the California Unfair Competition Law and Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer Protection Act), based on an alleged failure to disclose design defects, which allegedly cause the stink.District Court Certifies “Smelly Washer” Class.  The plaintiffs moved to certify a class of California and Texas consumers. In opposing class certification, Electrolux argued that the plaintiffs could not satisfy the predominance requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) because causation would require individualized proof. The district court disagreed, finding that class members could prove causation through exposure to uniform business practices.  Terrill, et al. v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., 295 F.R.D. 671 (S.D. Ga. 2013).Eleventh Circuit Vacates Certification.  Electrolux appealed the decision, arguing that the district court misapplied California and Texas law when it concluded that the plaintiffs could prove causation on a classwide basis. The Eleventh Circuit agreed and vacated the class certification decision.  The court concluded that, to proceed as a class action, the plaintiffs must be able to prove classwide exposure to a uniform misrepresentation. The plaintiffs could not do so in this case because there was no evidence that “class members saw any advertisements from [Electrolux], much less uniform advertisements, before they purchased their washing machines.”  Brown, et al., 2016 WL 1085517, at *7, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 5112, at *20. Because of this lack of classwide proof, the consumer claims did not satisfy predominance and could not proceed as a class action.“Smelly” Washer Takeaway.  This case establishes that under Eleventh Circuit law, certification of misrepresentation claims requires common evidence that class members were exposed to the allegedly offending statement prior to purchase. Common evidence of purchase alone is not enough for plaintiffs to certify a class.

What’s That Smell?: Eleventh Circuit Vacates Class Certification for Failure to Show Classwide Exposure to Misrepresentations in Electrolux Moldy Washer Case

On March 21, 2016, the Eleventh Circuit vacated a district court’s decision to grant class certification to California and Texas consumers claiming that Electro

What’s That Smell?: Eleventh Circuit Vacates Class Certification for Failure to Show Classwide Exposure to Misrepresentations in Electrolux Moldy Washer Case

A California federal district court recently denied a plaintiff’s second attempt to certify a class of Yakult consumers allegedly misled by Yakult’s packaging and advertising claims touting the health benefits of its yogurt, finding that the plaintiff’s attempt to “manufacture” standing once again fell short.  Torrent v. Yakult U.S.A., Inc. Case No. 8:15-cv-00124-CJC-JCG (C.D. Cal. March 8, 2016).Background.  <a href="http://classdismissed.mofo.com/food-misbranding/stand-down-court-rejects-yakult-yogurt-false-advertising-class-for-lack-of-standing/">As we previously reported</a>, Central District of California Judge Cormac J. Carney denied plaintiff Nicolas Torrent’s original motion for class certification, ruling that plaintiff lacked Article III standing to seek injunctive relief because he failed to allege he would purchase Yakult yogurts again, and therefore could not show sufficient likelihood of future harm.  Torrent v. Yakult U.S.A., Inc. Case No. 8:15-cv-00124-CJC-JCG (C.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2016).  On March 8, 2016, Judge Carney again rejected the plaintiff’s motion for class certification, ruling that his newly alleged intent to buy Yakult in the future was nothing more than a barely disguised attempt to manufacture standing.  Torrent v. Yakult U.S.A., Inc. Case No. 8:15-cv-00124-CJC-JCG (C.D. Cal. March 7, 2016).Takeaway.  Courts in the Ninth Circuit have reached inconsistent results regarding what a plaintiff must plead to demonstrate standing to sue for injunctive relief.  Some, like the Yakult court, have held that a plaintiff who does not intend to purchase the challenged product again cannot suffer future harm and, as a result, lacks standing to pursue injunctive relief.  See, e.g., Garrison v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp., Inc., No. 13-CV-05222-VC, 2014 WL 2451290, at *5 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2014).  Others have held that a misbranding plaintiff lacks standing because he or she cannot be duped by the same advertisement again.  See, e.g.,Rahman v. Mott’s LLP, No. CV 13-3482-SI, 2014 WL 5282106, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2014).  Some courts, however, have expressed the concern that false advertising might go unchallenged and have rejected both positions and sustained standing.  See, e.g., Henderson v. Gruma Corp., No. CV 10-04173-AHM-AJWX, 2011 WL 1362188, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2011).Courts are increasingly siding with Judge Carney in Yakult, finding that lack of intent to purchase precludes standing.  Judge Carney’s current decision confirms that a plaintiff cannot avoid this result by simply amending the complaint to allege that he or she intends to purchase the challenged product; standing to sue cannot be manufactured.

Class Cert Denial Redux: Plaintiff’s “Manufactured” Standing Falls Short in Yakult Yogurt Action

A California federal district court recently denied a plaintiff’s second attempt to certify a class of Yakult consumers allegedly misled by Yakult’s packaging a

Class Cert Denial Redux: Plaintiff’s “Manufactured” Standing Falls Short in Yakult Yogurt Action

On January 5, 2016, in Torrent v. Yakult U.S.A., Inc., U.S. District Court Judge Cormac J. Carney denied the plaintiff’s motion to certify a class of Yakult yogurt consumers who were allegedly misled by Yakult’s packaging and advertising claims.  The Court found that the sole named plaintiff lacked Article III standing to seek injunctive relief on behalf of the putative class because he failed to allege or offer evidence of a sufficient likelihood of future harm.  This decision is notable for its refusal to carve out an exception to Article III requirements in favor of state consumer protection laws.The named plaintiff, Nicolas Torrent, alleged that Yakult violated California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) by deceptively claiming that its probiotic beverages containing the Lactobacillus casei Shirota microorganism help balance the digestive system and maintain overall health.  The plaintiff sought to certify a class of all persons or entities who purchased Yakult while in the state of California since January 2011, and sought only declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of himself and the putative class.  The plaintiff claimed that he purchased Yakult products multiple times, and “but for” Yakult’s misrepresentations about the health benefits of its products, he would not have done so.  He did not allege that he intended to buy Yakult in the future, and he did not seek restitution or money damages.The Court first considered the threshold question of whether the plaintiff had standing to bring a UCL claim for injunctive relief under Article III of the Constitution.  Judge Carney noted that Article III requires that a plaintiff seeking injunctive relief present evidence that there is a “sufficient likelihood” that he or she “will be wronged in a similar way in the future.”  Past exposure to illegal conduct does not, by itself, show a present case or controversy if there are no continuing, present adverse effects.The Court acknowledged the split within the Ninth Circuit regarding whether the Article III standing requirement for injunctive relief applies in the consumer protection context, noting that some courts have held that a plaintiff in an UCL false advertising case retains standing to pursue injunctive relief so long as the defendant continues to deceptively market and sell the products at issue.  However, the Court rejected this approach, finding “more persuasive the courts that have insisted that it is improper to carve out an exception to Article III’s standing requirements to further the purpose of California consumer protection laws.”  The Court agreed with those cases, concluding that “Article III’s standing requirements take precedence over enforcement of state consumer protection laws,” and “[b]ecause Torrent has not even alleged that he intends to buy Yakult in the future, let alone submitted evidence to that effect,” he had no standing to pursue injunctive relief.Plaintiff’s lack of standing to pursue injunctive relief doomed his class certification motion:“Owing to his lack of standing to pursue injunctive relief,” the plaintiff “failed to provide sound rationale for class certification under either [Rule 23] (b)(1)(A) or (b)(2).”

Stand Down! Court Rejects Yakult Yogurt False Advertising Class for Lack of Standing

On January 5, 2016, in Torrent v. Yakult U.S.A., Inc., U.S. District Court Judge Cormac J. Carney denied the plaintiff’s motion to certify a class of Yakult yog

Stand Down!  Court Rejects Yakult Yogurt False Advertising Class for Lack of Standing