By Sarah E. Weiner

On June 20, the Seventh Circuit held that a defendant cannot moot a plaintiff’s claim simply by depositing with the court an amount intended to fully compensate the plaintiff. Taking up the question left open by the Supreme Court in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, Chief Judge Wood’s opinion for the unanimous panel explained that defendants may not use Rule 67 to pick-off putative plaintiff class representatives.

In Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., Fulton Dental filed a class action complaint alleging that Bisco had sent unsolicited faxes in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. In addition to declaratory and injunctive relief, Fulton sought statutory damages for two alleged violations—worth $500 per negligent violation or $1,500 per willful violation. Hoping to moot the suit before class certification, Bisco made Fulton an offer of judgment under Rule 68. But before Fulton responded to the offer, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Campbell-Ewald, which held that an unaccepted offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff’s claim. Shortly thereafter, Fulton rejected Bisco’s offer.

By Meenakshi Krishnan

On Monday, June 19, the Supreme Court held 8-1 in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County that California courts lacked specific jurisdiction to entertain claims brought by plaintiffs who were not California residents, as there was an insufficient connection between the forum and the specific claims at issue. 

In Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., a group of plaintiffs—86 California residents and 592 residents from other states—filed several state law claims in California Superior Court, alleging health damage caused by Plavix, a drug manufactured and sold by Bristol-Myers. The nonresident plaintiffs did not claim that they procured Plavix through any California source, nor did they claim they were injured or treated for their injuries in California. Bristol-Myers did not develop, market, manufacture, or otherwise work on Plavix in California, though the drug was sold in the state. Bristol-Myers asserted lack of personal jurisdiction, and after the Supreme Court’s decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman, the California Court of Appeal held that California courts had specific jurisdiction over the nonresidents’ claims. The California Supreme Court affirmed, applying a “sliding scale approach to specific jurisdiction.” Under that approach, “the more wide ranging the defendant’s forum contacts, the more readily is shown a connection between the forum contacts and the claim.” The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the California courts’ exercise of jurisdiction in this case violated the Due Process Clause and subsequently reversed and remanded.

By E. Lynn Grayson 

EPA recently extended the effective date of the final reporting and recordkeeping requirements for certain chemical substances when they are manufactured or processed at the nanoscale. EPA has delayed the effective date of the January 12, 2017 final rule from May 12, 2017 to August 14, 2017.

Industry sought to repeal the rule, or at a minimum, obtain an extension of the effective until EPA adopts guidance explaining how to comply with the new two-fold requirements including: 1) companies that make, import or process a distinct or “discrete” form of a nanoscale chemical at some time in the future are to provide information to EPA (135 days before they make, import or process the chemical or within 30 days of deciding to manufacture or process the chemical); and 2) companies must comply with a one-time obligation to report information known or reasonably attainable regarding any nanoscale chemicals made or processed at any time during the past three years. Based upon the information EPA receives, the Agency could decide to require new toxicity, exposure or other data or it could decide to impose restrictions on commercial activity.

By Alexander M. Smith

This morning, the Supreme Court held 8-0 in Microsoft Corp. v. Baker that the named plaintiffs in a class action cannot appeal a denial of class certification (or the granting of a motion to strike class allegations) by voluntarily dismissing their claims.  A five-Justice majority held that this tactic was barred because a voluntary dismissal under these circumstances does not constitute a “final order” under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, while three Justices concurred in the judgment on the basis that such a voluntary dismissal extinguishes the adversity necessary to give rise to Article III standing.  (The Consumer Law Roundup has covered Baker in three previous posts.) 

In Baker, the plaintiffs had filed a putative class action against Microsoft alleging that a defect in the Xbox 360 resulted in scratched discs.  After the district court granted Microsoft’s motion to strike the plaintiffs’ class allegations, the named plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against Microsoft so that there would be a “final decision” from which they could appeal the denial of class certification.  The Ninth Circuit held, inter alia, that a stipulated dismissal of an individual claim is an adverse and appealable final judgment.  The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address this jurisdictional issue and subsequently reversed.

By Jill M. Hutchison 

The Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project has started in the District of Arizona (for cases filed after May 1, 2017) and the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Illinois (for cases filed on or after June 1, 2017).  See General Order 17-08 (D. Az. Apr. 14, 2017); General Order 17-005 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 27, 2017).  The bottom line is that the pilot project will require defendants in these courts to quickly marshal the relevant facts and in short order produce a level of substantive disclosures, documents, and ESI that could pose a considerable challenge in consumer class actions and other complex cases.  While these requirements set an ambitious goal for responsive pleadings and early disclosure of a broad swathe of information, there are proactive measures companies can take to be better prepared to respond to consumer class actions in the tight timeframe set by the pilot project.   

Scope of the Pilot Project and Its Requirements

The two courts’ respective Standing Orders outline the details of the project, which will run for three years and applies to nearly all civil cases.  See General Order 17-08 (D. Az.) and Standing Order Regarding Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project (N.D. Ill.).  The only civil cases exempted from the project are (1) actions under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, (2) patent cases governed by local rule, (3) cases transferred for consolidated administration by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, and (4) the assortment of cases listed in Rule 26(a)(1)(B) (i.e., review on administrative record, in rem forfeiture actions arising from federal statute, any proceeding challenging a criminal conviction or sentence, cases brought by someone in custody without the aid of an attorney, actions by the U.S. to recover benefit payments, actions by the U.S. to collect on government-guaranteed student loans, proceedings ancillary to cases in other courts, and actions to enforce arbitration awards).  Parties are not allowed to opt out. 

By Kate T. Spelman

On May 26, the plaintiffs in Goldemberg v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Cos. Inc. filed a motion for preliminary approval to settle their class claims against Johnson & Johnson related to the defendant’s Aveeno Active Naturals brand of personal care products.  The lawsuit, filed in 2013 in the Southern District of New York, alleged that the Aveeno products were falsely advertised as “natural” when they in fact contain synthetic and unnatural ingredients.  In October 2016, the Court certified classes of California, New York, and Florida consumers.  The proposed settlement seeks to certify a class of Aveeno Active Naturals Products consumers nationwide.  Johnson & Johnson has agreed to fund a $6.75 million settlement, and will remove the term “Active Naturals” from the front label of its products. 

This settlement is the latest in a long line of class action settlements related to “natural” products ranging from foods to beauty care products to household cleansers.  In October 2016, for example, Unilever reached a $3.26 million settlement related to its TRESemme Naturals hair products, and in November 2016 Blue Diamond Growers settled a lawsuit related to its Almond Breeze and Nut Thins “natural” and “all natural” products for almost $9 million.  In January 2017, Method Products reached a $2.8 million settlement regarding its “natural” and/or “naturally derived” cleaning products.

These lawsuits, which follow a familiar pattern, seek to capitalize on the lack of government regulation regarding use of the term “natural” on consumer products.  Although the FDA is currently in the rulemaking process with respect to use of the term “natural” on food labeling, there is little indication as to when a final regulation will issue.  In the meantime, the debate over what constitutes a “natural” product will continue to rage in the courts.

The case is Goldemberg v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Cos. Inc., No. 7:13-cv-03073 (S.D.N.Y.).