Products Liability & Mass Torts Class Action Review – 2025

affected individuals. In May of 2024, the court determined that GM was entitled to summary judgment regarding claims for vehicles purchased before October 2012. Since the plaintiff bought his truck in September 2012, the court ruled that his claims were deemed legally invalid, leading to his removal as a suitable class representative. Consequently, the court decertified the class and requested additional briefs addressing the status of the class representative and the overall viability of the case given the reduced class size. In response, GM filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law, arguing that no plaintiff remained with valid claims, and thus, a final judgment should be entered in its favor. Meanwhile, five individuals – Steve Lawson, Randy Young, Randy Gleeson, Michael Hammers, and James Phipps – sought to intervene in the case as new plaintiffs. The proposed intervenors contended that legal precedent and the interests of justice required their substitution as plaintiffs. According to Rule 24(a)(2), a court must allow intervention if a party has an interest in the subject matter that might be affected by the case’s outcome and if their interests are not adequately represented by the existing parties. GM opposed the intervention, asserting that no viable claims remained in the case and claiming that allowing new plaintiffs to enter at this late stage would prejudice its defense. GM suggested that the intervenors should file a new lawsuit instead. The court acknowledged that while timeliness is crucial for intervention, the intervenors’ delay stemmed from their belief that the existing class representative could adequately represent their interests. Once it became apparent that this was no longer the case, they promptly filed their motion. The court analyzed pertinent case law, which has permitted late interventions in similar circumstances, emphasizing the importance of considering the totality of the situation. The court reasoned that the proposed intervenors demonstrated that they have a protectable interest in the case as members of the former class who own vehicles affected by the alleged oil consumption defect. If the case were dismissed, they would be unable to pursue their claims within this action and might face significant delays if they had to initiate a new lawsuit. Moreover, with Riddell no longer able to represent the interests of the class, the proposed intervenors risked having no party to advocate for them. The court also rejected GM’s claims that the intervenors lacked standing, noting that each had submitted declarations confirming that their vehicles had suffered excessive oil consumption. As a result, the court denied GM’s motion for entry of final judgment and granted the proposed intervenors’ motion to intervene, allowing them to pursue their claims in the ongoing litigation. Courts also declined to strike class claims at the pleading stage in multiple rulings in 2024. The first was in Ostenfeld, et al. v. Laundress, LLC , 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38442 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2024). The defendant in two consolidated actions, The Laundress, marketed its products as non-toxic, eco-friendly, and safe alternatives to chemical cleaners. However, in November 2022, the company issued a recall for approximately 8 million units, citing contamination by harmful bacteria, including Burkholderia cepacia, Klebsiella aerogenes, and Pseudomonas species, which pose serious health risks, especially for immunocompromised individuals. Despite marketing itself as a safe, non-toxic brand, these bacterial strains were found in the products, and there were reports of infections linked to their use. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant’s products contaminated with harmful bacteria long before the recall, and that the company failed to take appropriate action to prevent contamination. The plaintiffs further asserted that the defendant’s marketing of its products as “non-toxic” was misleading and deceptive. Id. at *5. The plaintiffs sought certification of a class action with multiple sub-classes, including an economic injury class, a physical injury class, and a California sub-class. The plaintiffs brought claims for deceptive advertising, breach of warranties, unjust enrichment, and product liability for design defects, manufacturing defects, and failure to warn. The defendant moved to strike the class allegations in the complaint, arguing that the class claims were too varied and that individual issues of fact, particularly regarding causation, damages, and the applicability of different state laws, would make class certification unmanageable. The court denied the motion to strike the class allegations. The court held that it was premature to rule on the viability of class certification, as the issues raised (such as choice-of-law concerns and variations in state law) were typically addressed during the class certification process itself. The court noted that class certification challenges were best dealt with during the discovery phase when more facts are available. The court stated that it is not yet clear whether these issues could be overcome by use of sub-classes or other case management tools, so it was premature to dismiss the class claims based on these objections. Accordingly, the court denied the motion to strike the class claims. The court similarly declined to strike class claims in Staubitz, et al. v. Arthrex, Inc ., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176217 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2024). The plaintiff in this action alleged that the defendant’s medical device called the Knotless 1.8 Fibertak Soft Anchor (the Anchor), which was used during shoulder surgeries, caused injuries due to defects in its design, manufacturing, or warnings. Specifically, the plaintiff asserted that the Anchor

Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online