Gibbons Law Alert

Gibbons Law Alert

Category: Class Action Defense

Rejecting Tele Aid, the Third Circuit in Maniscalco v. Brother Holds that the Laws of Consumers’ Home States Apply in Nationwide Class Actions

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On April 22, 2013

On March 8, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued its precedential decision in Maniscalco v. Brother International Corp., which significantly restricts the ability of out-of state plaintiffs to use the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (“NJCFA”) to pursue nationwide class actions in New Jersey against New Jersey based companies.

BMW Alleged Battery Defect Putative Class Action Holds a Charge

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On April 15, 2013

In Morano v. BMW of N. America, LLC, the Court refused to dismiss warranty and tort claims in a putative class action alleging a known defect in a BMW vehicle’s battery. The plaintiff alleged that the battery in his vehicle would not hold a charge and that his local dealer would not replace it because it was excluded from the BMW’s warranty and maintenance program. The plaintiff alleged that Defendant failed to disclose the battery coverage exclusion, and he sought to represent a Florida class of purchasers or leasees.

Supreme Court Prohibits Efforts to Evade CAFA’s Scope

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On April 12, 2013

In a unanimous decision interpreting the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), the U.S. Supreme Court in The Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles, held that a named plaintiff cannot avoid the scope of CAFA jurisdiction by stipulating that the class he seeks to represent will not seek damages that exceed the $5 million amount in controversy threshold.

Third Circuit Makes Approval of Class Action Settlements Including Cy Pres Distributions More Difficult

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On March 22, 2013

In In re Baby Products Antitrust Litigation, the Third Circuit vacated a district court’s approval of a $35.5 million class action settlement, finding it unreasonable that only $3 million of the settlement fund was to be distributed to class members. This marked the first time the Third Circuit has addressed the issue of cy pres distributions in class action settlements, and will likely lead district courts to subject class action settlements involving cy pres distributions to greater scrutiny.

Ford Can’t Halt All Claims in Alleged Defective Fuel Tank Putative Class Action

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On February 14, 2013

In an opinion authored by Judge Debevoise, a federal district court in New Jersey denied Ford Motor Company’s attempt to toss out a putative class action regarding an alleged defect in the fuel tanks of various Ford trucks and vans. In Coba v. Ford Motor Co., Judge Debevoise held that the plaintiffs’ claims of breach of express warranty and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing were adequately pleaded based on allegations that Ford knowingly replaced defective fuel tanks with other defective tanks. But Judge Debevoise dismissed, with leave to replead, the plaintiffs’ claims of common law fraud and violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act because there were no allegations that Ford knew the plaintiffs’ tanks were defective when they were sold.

Plaintiffs in Moldy Washing Machine Litigation May Proceed as a Class

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On December 12, 2012

A recent Seventh Circuit decision, authored by Judge Richard Posner, could have an impact on future class action litigations. In Butler, et al. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.,—a lawsuit involving product defects that allegedly cause mold buildup in washing machines sold by Sears between 2001 and 2004—the Seventh Circuit sought to clarify “predominance,” a concept that, in the context of class action litigation, has been shrouded by ambiguity. In its opinion, the Seventh Circuit explained that “[p]redominance is a question of efficiency.” Put simply, predominance asks whether it is “more efficient . . . to decide some issues on a class basis or all issues in separate trials?”

Third Circuit Deflates Run-Flat Tire Class Action Against BMW and Bridgestone

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On September 21, 2012

In Marcus v. BMW of N. Am, LLC, et al., the Third Circuit vacated an order certifying a class of owners and lessees of various model-year BMW vehicles equipped with run-flat tires, finding the class definition impermissibly vague, the proposed class not ascertainable, and otherwise rejecting certification on numerosity and predominance grounds. Although the Court remanded for further proceedings, it will likely be very difficult for the plaintiff to have a class certified in light of the Court’s directives for the necessary proof.

Second Circuit Rejects “Novel” Argument That Putative Class Action Plaintiff Has Article III Standing to Sue “Juridically Linked” Defendants Who Did Not Cause Her Any “Injury-In-Fact”

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On July 16, 2012

In Mahon v. Ticor Title Ins. Co., the Second Circuit held that a putative class action plaintiff must allege that each defendant injured her to satisfy Article III’s standing requirement. In so holding, the court explained that a putative class action plaintiff cannot use FED. R. CIV. P. 23’s “juridical link” doctrine to bootstrap the alleged injuries of absent, would-be class members and create Article III standing where none otherwise exists.

Third Circuit Rejects Volkswagen Class Settlement for Fundamental Intra-Class Conflict in Consumer Fraud Class Action

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On June 8, 2012

In a precedential opinion issued on May 31, 2012, the Third Circuit in Dewey v. Volkswagen AG, et al., reversed an order granting final approval of a nationwide class action settlement on the ground that the class representative plaintiffs could not adequately represent the interests of the entire class, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4).

Third Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Off-Label Marketing Actions Against Schering for Lack of Standing

by

Posted in Class Action Defense / General Litigation

On May 31, 2012

In a consolidated appeal pitting a putative class of third-party payors of drugs prescribed for uses not approved by the Food and Drug Administration, and a putative class of individual patients prescribed such drugs, against Schering-Plough and affiliated entities, the Third Circuit in In re Schering-Plough Corp. Intron/Temodar Consumer Class Action affirmed the district courts’ dismissals of both actions for lack of standing. The Third Circuit held that both plaintiffs, who brought federal and state statutory and common law causes of action, failed to allege a plausible nexus between Schering’s allegedly illegal marketing campaign and the doctors’ decisions to prescribe various drugs for unapproved uses.

Connect:

About Gibbons

With 200 attorneys, Gibbons is a leading law firm in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Washington, DC, and Florida, ranked among the nation’s top 200 by The American Lawyer. More…

Subscribe

Archived Blog Posts

Categories