method of adjudicating the class members’ claims. The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to show that common questions predominated over individual ones, especially regarding causation and damages. The court also highlighted the complexity of proving causation as it was highly complicated and would require individualized inquiries on a person-by-person, property-by-property, and business-by-business basis across a class consisting of approximately 190,000 persons and between 2,500 and 3,500 businesses. For these reasons, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. 3. Rulings Denying Decertification Motion Motions for decertification of a certified class are rare in products liability and mass tort actions. Over the past year, one court ruling – in Siqueiros, et al. v. General Motors LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100114 (N.D. Cal. June 8, 2023) – addressed these issues. The plaintiffs filed a class action against the defendant based on their purchase of GM vehicles which they alleged consumed an excessive amount of engine oil. Following a jury trial and a finding in favor of the plaintiffs, the defendant moved for decertification of the classes. In support of decertification, the defendant contended that individual issues predominated such that class treatment of damages was not appropriate; that trying the statute of limitations defenses on a class-wide basis violated Rule 23 and the defendant ’ s due process rights, as individual inquiries related to the timeliness of claims are required; and that the plaintiffs failed to prove Article III standing for all class members, because not every member of the class suffered a legally recognizable injury. The court previously had concluded that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find a common, class-wide defect in the vehicles, which refuted GM ’ s claims regarding the existence of a defect, commonality of injury, causation, and unmerchantability. The court further opined that the statute of limitations defense did not necessarily preclude class certification, and the court had found that the existence of a statute of limitations issue did not necessarily mean individual issues predominated over common issues of law and fact. Finally, the court ruled that the plaintiffs had Article III standing based on their claims of overpaying for allegedly defective vehicles, which sufficiently alleged an injury-in-fact. For these reasons, the court denied the defendant ’ s motion to decertify the class. 4. Rulings On Class Action Motions At The Pleading Stage Motions to dismiss class actions are rarely successful in general, and the same is true for products liability and mass tort claims. This is in part due to the liberal notice pleading standards offered by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Notice pleading generally requires the complaint to notify the opposing party and the court of the general issues in the case. Fact pleading, on the other hand, and as the name suggests, requires the pleader to include what is sometimes referred to as “hyper-detailed” facts to support each claim. With respect to motions to dismiss products liability class actions at the pleading stage, arguments that plaintiff lacks standing to bring the claims are often the most successful types of arguments. Other types of successful motions include arguments challenging certain claims of strict products liability insofar as the conduct complained of does not rise to that of an “inherently dangerous” activity. A group of parents representing their minor children in Gould, et al. v. Guida-Seibert Dairy Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29137 (D.N.J. Feb. 21, 2023), filed a class action alleging that the children suffered injuries due to consuming contaminated milk processed by the defendant. The contaminated milk was supplied to schools in the Camden School District as part of a contract between the district and Aramark, which, in turn, contracted with Guida-Seibert for milk. The children manifested physical symptoms such as severe stomach pain, cramping, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and flatulence. The children were taken to a local hospital but were eventually discharged, although some continued to experience stomach pain. The plaintiffs filed claims of negligence, violations of the New Jersey Products Liability Act (NJPLA), and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED). The plaintiffs sought class certification of two classes, including a New Jersey Parent Class and the New Jersey Student Class, consisting of parents and legal guardians of students who ingested the contaminated milk and the students themselves. The defendant filed motions to dismiss and strike the class allegations. In response to the motion to dismiss, the court
10
© Duane Morris LLP 2024
Duane Morris Product Liability And Mass Torts Class Action Review – 2024
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online