Update: Plaintiffs in Subway Not-Foot-Long Class Action Throw in the Napkin

1ftIn September WLF’s Cory Andrews applauded the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit’s rejection of a settlement of a consumer-fraud class-action suit against Subway. The suit alleged that not all Subway foot-long sandwiches measured a full 12″. The WLF Legal Pulse post did note, however, that on the basis of “new” information from an employee of one of Subway’s vendors, the plaintiffs refiled their suit in a Wisconsin federal court after the appeals court’s dismissal.

We learned today, thanks to the Institute for Legal Reform (ILR) (which kindly referenced our September post) and the Legal Newsline story ILR referenced, that the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their suit late last month. Not surprisingly, the plaintiffs’ quiet surrender garnered substantially less attention than the filing of their original lawsuit in 2013.

Trial Judge Tosses Jury Verdict in Talcum Powder Mass-Tort Suit for Lack of Causation

RobertWrightFeatured Expert Contributor, Mass Torts—Asbestos

Robert H. Wright, a Partner with Horvitz & Levy LLP in Los Angeles, CA

In a case that has generated national publicity, Judge Maren E. Nelson of the Los Angeles County Superior Court granted Johnson & Johnson’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict after a jury awarded plaintiff $417 million, including $347 million in punitive damages, in a case alleging injury from exposure to talc.  (See Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Cases, Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BC628228, JCCP No. 4872, Oct. 20, 2017 Order.)

The trial court’s order is significant in several respects, but in particular because it rejects plaintiff’s attempt to establish causation based on epidemiologic studies that do not show a relative risk of at least 2.0 for the specific cancer alleged by plaintiff. Continue reading “Trial Judge Tosses Jury Verdict in Talcum Powder Mass-Tort Suit for Lack of Causation”

Eighth Circuit Finds Standing, but Ultimately Rejects Claims, in Data-Breach Suit

Cruz-Alvarez_F

Featured Expert Contributor—Civil Justice/Class Actions

Frank Cruz-Alvarez, Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., with Rachel Forman, Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.

On August 21, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in Kuhns v. Scottrade, Inc., 868 F.3d 711 (8th Cir. 2017), affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a consolidated class action complaint.  The Eighth Circuit disagreed with the district court and held that the plaintiff had Article III standing for the contract-related claims, but nonetheless affirmed the dismissal of the complaint because it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Continue reading “Eighth Circuit Finds Standing, but Ultimately Rejects Claims, in Data-Breach Suit”

Is D.C. Circuit’s Data-Breach Standing Decision a Tipping Point for High Court Review?

cohen-david-tGuest Commentary by David T. Cohen, Counsel at Ropes & Gray LLP in its New York, NY office.

Article III of the U.S. Constitution requires all private litigants in federal court to establish “standing,” that is, to show that they are proper litigants to raise the defendant’s alleged legal violations with the court. To have standing, a plaintiff must face an actual or sufficiently imminent future injury from the legal violation.  Several recent federal appellate decisions have grappled with the issue of when, if ever, a plaintiff whose personal information was compromised in a data breach—but who has suffered no actual harm from that compromise—faces a sufficiently imminent future harm to have Article III standing.

One such recent case stands out from the pack, both because it hails from the particularly prominent U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and because it is the subject of a forthcoming petition for a writ of certiorari, setting the stage for what could become the first-ever ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on the issue in a data breach matter. Continue reading “Is D.C. Circuit’s Data-Breach Standing Decision a Tipping Point for High Court Review?”

FTC’s Action against “Repetitive” Filing of Citizen Petitions Reflects Expanding Pharma-Sector Enforcement Program

Featured Expert Column: Antitrust & Competition Policy — Federal Trade Commission

06633 - Royall, M. Sean ( Dallas )By M. Sean Royall, a Partner with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, with Richard H. Cunningham, Of Counsel in the firm’s Denver, CO office, and Andrew B. Blumberg, an Associate Attorney in the firm’s Dallas, TX office.

On February 7th, 2017, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a complaint alleging that Shire ViroPharma Inc. (Shire) violated the antitrust laws by filing sham citizen petitions in an effort to forestall generic competition for its branded prescription drug, Vancocin.  The case is another stepping stone in the agency’s steadily expanding efforts to police what it views as potential antitrust abuses in the pharmaceutical sector. Continue reading “FTC’s Action against “Repetitive” Filing of Citizen Petitions Reflects Expanding Pharma-Sector Enforcement Program”

WLF Webinar, October 11, 1:00 PM: Winning Personal Jurisdiction and Venue Battles

Personal Jurisdiction and Venue Disputes: Succeeding in a Changed Legal Environment
Wednesday, October 11, 2017, 1:00-2:00 pm EST

To view live on WLF’s Ustream channel, click here.

Featuring:

Description: Previously relegated to law-school classroom debate, personal jurisdiction and venue are now front-of-mind issues for civil litigators. Our speakers will address how lower courts, and the plaintiffs’ bar, have responded to the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent rebukes of forum shopping. They will also identify the open questions and possible loopholes in the new jurisprudence, and discuss strategic responses on how to obtain and keep a “home court” advantage.

D.C. Circuit Once Again Reminds EPA Which Governmental Branch Enacts Laws

Featured Expert Column – Environmental Law and Policy

sboxermanBy Samuel B. Boxerman, Sidley Austin LLP with Katharine Falahee Newman, Sidley Austin LLP

In recent years, either when Congress has chosen not to act on certain matters—or arguably does so without sufficient clarity—the Executive Branch has asserted the power to address issues through regulation. These agency actions, of course, run headlong into one of the core separation of powers under the Constitution—that Congress is empowered to enact laws while the Executive is tasked with implementing them.

Hence, not surprisingly, the judiciary has increasingly been asked to answer whether an agency had the statutory authority to issue a particular regulation—or whether the agency exceeded the power it had been granted by the Congress.

A recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit adds to that jurisprudence. On August 8, 2017, a three-judge panel ruled in Mexichem Fluor, Inc. v. EPA that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) exceeded its authority under the Clean Air Act (“CAA” or Act) when it issued a 2015 rule eliminating the use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) in certain products (the “2015 HFC Rule”). Continue reading “D.C. Circuit Once Again Reminds EPA Which Governmental Branch Enacts Laws”