Products Liability & Mass Torts Class Action Review – 2025

suffered from a design or manufacturing defect that led to breakage during his surgery, resulting in pain, loss of mobility, and a second surgery to remove metal fragments. The plaintiff brought common law claims for strict products liability including design defect, manufacturing defect, and failure to warn, and for negligence, and breach of implied warranty. The plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a class of individuals who were similarly harmed by the Anchor. The defendant moved to strike the plaintiff’s class allegations, arguing that the plaintiff failed to show that class could meet the Rule 23 requirements. Specifically, the defendant contended that the plaintiff’s class definition was overly broad, that typicality and predominance could not be established because of individualized issues of causation and damages, and that including out-of- state class members was improper on account of choice-of-law and jurisdictional issues. The court, however, denied the motion to strike. The court ruled that issues of typicality and predominance – such as whether the claims of class members were sufficiently similar to the plaintiff’s claims and whether common legal and factual questions predominated – should be addressed at the class certification stage. The court acknowledged that while there may be individualized issues regarding causation and damages, the plaintiff raised plausible common issues, such as the alleged defectiveness of the Anchor and the company’s failure to warn of its risks. Regarding the class definition, the court found that it was premature to strike the allegations based on the possibility of the definition being overly broad. The court opined that a class definition can be amended before final certification, and any issues with standing or applicability of state laws would be more appropriately dealt with at the class certification stage. Finally, the court rejected the defendant’s argument that out-of-state members should be excluded, noting that any issues regarding state law differences are typically addressed at the class certification stage, particularly under the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3). For these reasons, the court denied the defendant’s motion to strike the class claims. Finally, the court in F.G., et al. v. Coopersurgical, Inc., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90329 (N.D. Cal. May 20, 2024), granted in part a plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant’s defective culture media, used during in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments, resulted in the destruction of their embryos. The culture media was recalled in December 2023 after an increase in complaints. The recall was issued because certain lots of the media were deficient in magnesium, a crucial component for embryo development. In total, approximately 994 bottles were affected, with 481 purchased by clinics in the U.S. The plaintiffs in the litigation are a married couple who sought IVF treatment at a New York fertility clinic and alleged that four of F.G.’s eggs, fertilized with H.I.’s sperm, were placed in the recalled culture media and subsequently destroyed. The plaintiffs filed a class action seeking damages for themselves and others whose embryos were exposed to the defective product. As part of its response to the recall, the defendant initiated a settlement program called the “Fertility Patient Program,” contacting affected patients and offering reimbursement. Id. at *4-5. However, the plaintiffs argued that the defendant’s communications were misleading and failed to inform patients about the ongoing class action lawsuit. Accordingly, the plaintiffs sought a protective order to stop the defendant from communicating with potential class members and to invalidate any releases obtained through these communications. While the court recognized the defendant’s argument that personal injury claims were not always be suitable for class treatment, it concluded that a protective order was necessary because the defendant’s communications had the potential to mislead putative class members by omitting crucial information about the class action. The court determined that the communications were not coercive but were misleading due to the failure to notify potential class members of the pending litigation. The court ordered the defendant to cease communications with potential class members regarding settlement offers unless those communications included a corrective notice. The court also required the defendant to provide a list of individuals contacted since March 1, 2024, and to issue a corrective disclosure to those individuals. This disclosure must inform them about the class action, provide contact details for plaintiffs’ counsel, and offer the option to void any settlement agreements they had signed. Additionally, the court required that any releases obtained after the filing of the class action could be voided by the affected individuals, and corrective notices must be sent to those individuals. For these reasons, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order. IV. Mass Torts And Multidistrict Litigation The plaintiffs’ bar typically pursues mass tort claims where the class action procedural device is not the most effective way to manage the litigation. Usually, this is because the plaintiff is claiming an injury which is often a highly individualized inquiry that is either not common across the class, is not typical across the class, or both. Claims for personal injuries often fail to satisfy the predominance requirement as well.

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