WTK Connect
This blog provides updates and important insights about products liability, commercial, and consumer litigation. It aims to educate our audience on the developments in these areas as well as to provide the audience with unique perspectives from seasoned defense attorneys. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
- The Ninth Circuit’s Decision Not to Rehear Panel’s Decision That Evidence Need Not Be Admissible At Class Certification, Gives Rise to a Fiery Dissent Criticizing the Decision
Nov 30, 2018 | Posted by Kirsten F. Gallacher | Topic: Class Actions
Earlier this year, the Ninth Circuit issued a decision in Sali v. Corona Regional Medical Center, 889 F.3d 623 (9th Cir. 2018), holding that because the class certification order is “preliminary” and can be entered at an early stage of the litigation, a motion for class certification need not be supported by admissible evidence.
Continue reading... - The Supreme Court Will Address Whether District Courts Are Required to Accept the FCC’s Legal Interpretation of the TCPA, Which Will Likely Have Huge Ramifications on TCPA Litigation
Nov 30, 2018 | Posted by Kirsten F. Gallacher | Topics: Class Actions, Telephone Consumer Protection Act
On November 13, 2018, the United States Supreme Court granted in part a petition for a writ of certiorari of the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc. v. PDR Network, LLC, 883 F.3d 459 (4th Cir. 2018). The specific question before the Supreme Court is “[w]hether the Hobbs Act required the district court in this case to accept the FCC’s legal interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.”
Continue reading... - Proctor & Gamble Cannot Stop Class Action Over “Natural” Herbal Essences Advertisements
Oct 31, 2018 | Posted by James P. Leonard | Topic: Class Actions
On October 24, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California held that the majority of false advertising claims made by a class of Plaintiff’s over hair products labeled as “Wild Naturals” against Proctor & Gamble (“P&G”) could go forward.
Continue reading... - TCPA Settlement Denied Due to Attorney Fees Inconsistent with Plaintiff’s “Relative Lack of Success”
Oct 31, 2018 | Posted by James P. Leonard | Topics: Class Actions, Telephone Consumer Protection Act
An Illinois federal judge recently denied a proposed settlement in a series of three TCPA cases known as the Ocwen cases essentially because the amount request for attorney fees—over 5.2 million—was too high, given class counsel’s “relative lack of success.”An Illinois federal judge recently denied a proposed settlement in a series of three TCPA cases known as the Ocwen cases essentially because the amount request for attorney fees—over $5.2 million—was too high, given class counsel’s “relative lack of success.”
Continue reading... - Warranty Woes: Judge Dismisses Class Action Involving Changes to L.L. Bean’s Return Policy
Sep 27, 2018 | Posted by Alexandra L. Preece | Topics: Warranty, Class Actions
A California District Court granted a motion to dismiss a putative class action that alleged L.L. Bean—a company long-known for its 100% Satisfaction Guarantee and corresponding lifetime warranty—violated various statutes, including the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, when the retailer changed its return policy in February 2018. Specifically, the retailer changed its lifetime warranty to a one-year return policy that requires proof of purchase. The new return policy also excludes from coverage products that have been misused, improperly cared for, or that exhibited “excessive wear and tear.”
Continue reading... - Winning the War on Allegedly Defective Products with Evidence of Industry Custom and Practice
Sep 27, 2018 | Posted by Robert K. Dixon| Posted by Alexandra L. Preece | Topics: Automotive, Product Liability, Class Actions
The California Supreme Court recently ruled that manufacturers may present industry custom-and-practice evidence for certain purposes in strict products liability actions involving design defect claims. While the Court’s ultimate decision is a little convoluted, it can be summarized as follows: Evidence that a manufacturer’s design conforms with industry custom and practice is not admissible to show that the manufacturer acted reasonably in adopting a challenged design. However, such evidence is admissible to help the jury to determine “whether the product is as safely designed as it should be, considering the feasibility and cost of alternative designs.”
Continue reading...