Gibbons Law Alert

Gibbons Law Alert

Category: Class Action Defense

Third Circuit Affirms That CFA and PLA Claims Can Coexist Independently

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On March 4, 2021

We recently blogged about a New Jersey Supreme Court decision in which the court held that claims under New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) may be brought in the same action as claims under the Products Liability Act (PLA). In a follow-up to that case, the Third Circuit in Sun Chemical Corporation v. Fike Corporation and Suppression Systems, Inc. applied the New Jersey Supreme Court’s guidance on the interplay between the CFA and PLA. The Third Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part a District Court judgment, finding that some of the claims were “absorbed by the PLA” and some could be brought independently pursuant to the CFA. Sun sued defendant Fike under the CFA for alleged misrepresentations related to Sun’s purchase of an explosion-suppression system. Sun alleged that Fike “misrepresented various aspects of the suppression system in its pre-purchase conversations” and that Fike was therefore liable for injuries and property damages suffered by Sun from an explosion that occurred at Sun’s facility. The District Court of New Jersey determined that Sun’s CFA claims were precluded and absorbed by the PLA because “Sun was seeking damages because various features of the suppression system failed and that failure caused personal injury to Sun’s employees.” The CFA, the District Court reasoned, could not be used to...

FCC Reverses Course and Finds That Government Contractors Are “Persons” Under the TCPA

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On January 26, 2021

Last month, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued an Order on Reconsideration, overturning Commission precedent by clarifying that federal, state, and local government contractors are “persons” under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and therefore must, under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)-(D), obtain prior written consent to make certain calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or artificial or prerecorded voice; to initiate a call to any residential telephone line using an artificial or prerecorded voice; to use a fax machine or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement; or to use an automatic telephone dialing system in such a way that two or more telephone lines of a multi-line business are engaged simultaneously. This ruling is the latest in the Commission’s efforts to protect consumers from unwanted robocalls. The TCPA prohibits certain unsolicited calls made by any “person,” which includes an “individual, partnership, association, joint-stock company, trust, or corporation,” without the prior written consent of the consumer. In 2016, the FCC issued a declaratory ruling stating that the federal government and federal government contractors were not “persons” under the TCPA, and therefore, the limitations on calling enumerated in Section 227(b)(1)(A)-(D) did not apply to them. The FCC reasoned that there is a longstanding presumption that the word “person” does not include the sovereign and that,...

Lack of Plaintiff Article III Standing Proves Fatal to Eleventh Circuit in FACTA Class Action Settlement

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On January 25, 2021

In a 7-to-3 en banc decision, the Eleventh Circuit vacated a high-stakes $6.3 million class settlement on standing grounds. In James Price v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., et al, the court held that a named plaintiff lacked standing to bring a claim under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) on behalf of a proposed settlement class. The plaintiff, Dr. David Muransky, filed a class action complaint against Godiva claiming a violation of FACTA, which prohibits “merchants from printing more than the last five digits of the card number (or the card’s expiration date) on receipts offered to customers.” After visiting a Godiva retail store in Florida, the plaintiff was handed a receipt that contained the first six and the last four digits of his credit card number–a technical violation of FACTA. The plaintiff claimed that the violation was “statutory in nature” and did “not intend[] to request any recovery for personal injury.” The plaintiff further framed the class’s harm from violations as “irreparable harm as a result of the defendant’s unlawful and wrongful conduct,” and that “Plaintiff and members of the class continue to be exposed to an elevated risk of identity theft.” The putative class was so large that Godiva could have faced statutory damages, punitive damages, and costs of more than $342...

Second District Court to Dismiss Claims Based on Unconstitutional Statute Provision

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On January 22, 2021

In Lindenbaum v. Realgy, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio dismissed the plaintiff’s “robo-call” class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), based on the Supreme Court’s 2020 holding that a statutory exception for automated calls to collect government debts was unconstitutional. Because the statute was unconstitutional at the time of the alleged violations, the district court determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed the lawsuit. Originally enacted in 1991, the TCPA restricts almost all prerecorded sales calls to cell phones. In 2015, Congress amended the provision to allow prerecorded calls “made solely to collect a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States.” 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii). The 2015 provision was struck down in 2020 by the United States Supreme Court’s plurality decision in Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants, Inc. While the Supreme Court struck down the portion of the statute dealing with calls for government debt, it left the rest intact. In Lindenbaum, the plaintiff brought a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the TCPA. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that she received two prerecorded calls, one to her cellphone and one to her landline, and had not provided express written consent to receive these calls. The plaintiff argued that the severance of the...

Federal Preemption of ‘Structure/Function’ Claims on Dietary Supplements

by and

Posted in Class Action Defense

On December 14, 2020

Congress amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) with the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) in 1990 and, in 1994, with the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA), which provided the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with regulatory authority over dietary supplements and specifically established “standards with respect to dietary supplements.” Together, the NLEA and DSHEA established “a new category of food products—specifically, dietary supplements—that have unique safety, labeling, manufacturing, and other related standards.” Kroessler v. CVS Health Corp., 977 F.3d 803, 808 (9th Cir. 2020). With Congress finding consumers “should be empowered to make choices” about potential benefits of dietary supplements, DSHEA implemented major shifts in dietary supplement regulation, including exempting “dietary supplements” from FDA drug approval and FDA food additive approval, 21 U.S.C. §321(g)(1), and expressly permitting dietary supplement labels to make “structure/function claims.” 21 U.S.C. §343(r)(6)(A). By definition, a structure/function claim “describes the role of a nutrient or dietary ingredient intended to affect the structure or function in humans [or] characterizes the documented mechanism by which a nutrient or dietary ingredient acts to maintain such structure or function.” Id. at §343(r)(6). Federal law allows such label claims, provided: (1) the manufacturer “has substantiation that such statement is truthful and not misleading”; (2) the label contains a prominent disclaimer that the statement...

Sixth Circuit Holds Faxes Seeking Recipient’s Information Are a Pretext to Advertisement and Thus Within the Purview of the TCPA

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On October 26, 2020

The Sixth Circuit in Matthew N. Fulton, D.D.S., P.C. v. Enclarity, Inc., on remand from the Supreme Court, upheld its previous ruling that faxes seeking the recipient’s information are considered a “pretext” to an advertisement, and thus fall within the scope of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The June 19, 2020 decision relies upon a 2006 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Order stating that “any surveys that serve as a pretext to an advertisement are subject to the TCPA’s facsimile advertising rules.” The fax requested that the recipient verify or update its information with Defendant LexisNexis “for clinical summaries, prescription renewals, and other sensitive communications.” Plaintiff’s Complaint alleged that this constituted a pretext to send additional marketing materials to recipients, as well as obtain the recipient’s involvement in Defendant LexisNexis’s database. Plaintiff asserted that Defendants and third parties would use the recipient’s data to send information “regarding products, services, competitions, and promotions,” thereby constituting “a pretext to increase awareness and use of Defendants’ proprietary database service and increase traffic to Defendants’ website.” Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the fax did not constitute an advertisement as defined by the TCPA. The Michigan district court dismissed, finding that since the fax did not state that anything was available for purchase or sale, it “lack[ed] the commercial...

New Jersey Supreme Court Holds That CFA and PLA Claims Can Be Pleaded in the Same Action

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On October 21, 2020

In a recent decision answering a question certified to it by the Third Circuit, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that claims brought under New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) may be brought in the same action as claims brought pursuant to the Products Liability Act (PLA), provided each claim is based on distinct conduct. In Sun Chemical Corporation v. Fike Corporation and Suppression Systems, Inc., the Court explained that it is the nature of the actions—not the resulting damages—that determines when claims may be brought under either the CFA or the PLA. The Court clarified that CFA claims may be brought in instances where a party alleges “express misrepresentations — deceptive, fraudulent, misleading, and other unconscionable commercial practices,” while PLA claims are reserved for claims based upon “product manufacturing, warning, or design defects.” The claims in Sun Chemical arose out of the plaintiff’s purchase of an explosion isolation and suppression system from the defendant to be used to “prevent and contain potential explosions” in the plaintiff’s new dust collection system. Plaintiff’s federal court complaint alleged that on the first day it used the suppression system, a fire broke out in the dust collection system and while the alarm in the suppression system was activated, it was inaudible. Plaintiff alleged that, as a result, several...

Eleventh Circuit Eliminates Incentive Awards for Named Plaintiffs in Class Action Settlements

by and

Posted in Class Action Defense

On October 19, 2020

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently upended what has become common practice in class action settlements by ruling that “incentive” awards to named plaintiffs are unlawful. In Johnson v. NPAS Solutions, LLC, the plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) alleging that the defendant used an automatic telephone dialing system to call cell phones without the proper consent. Less than eight months after the complaint was filed, the parties jointly filed a notice of settlement for an award of $1,432,000. The District Court preliminary approved the settlement and certified the class for settlement purposes. In addition, that order permitted the plaintiff to petition the court to receive an amount not to exceed $6,000 “as acknowledgement of this role in prosecuting this case on behalf of class members.” The court also set a date for class members to opt out of the class settlement and a date three weeks later for class counsel to submit their petition for attorneys’ fees and costs. One person objected to the settlement on the grounds that (1) the objection deadline was set before the deadline for class counsel to file their attorneys’ fee petition, which she contended violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and the Due Process Clause; (2) the amount of...

Second Circuit Holds Injunctive Class of Past Purchasers Not Certifiable Under Rule 23(b)(2)

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On September 18, 2020

The Second Circuit recently resolved a conflict among district courts, holding that past purchasers of a product are ineligible for class certification under Rule 23(b)(2) because not all class members would benefit from injunctive relief. Specifically, explained the Court, it is unlikely a purchaser will buy the allegedly deceptive product again, and if they do, they do so with the knowledge of the alleged deception. In Berni v. Barilla S.p.A., plaintiffs initiated a class action alleging that defendant intentionally sold its pasta in misleading boxes that concealed non-functional “slack-fill,” i.e., excessive empty space in the box. The parties reached a settlement, agreeing that defendant would include a minimum “fill-line” on its boxes, to indicate how much pasta was in the container, and a disclaimer that the pasta is sold by weight and not by volume. Neither party challenged the settlement; however, an absent class member objected, arguing that the group of past purchasers could not be certified under Rule 23(b)(2) because past purchasers were ineligible for injunctive relief. The district court disagreed and certified the injunctive class and approved the settlement. The objector appealed. The Circuit Court vacated the district court’s order granting approval of the settlement class, reasoning that injunctive relief was not proper for the group of past purchasers and, thus, the group...

Third Circuit Reverses Denial of Class Certification: Holds Ascertainability Satisfied Even with Gaps in Records

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On September 17, 2020

On September 9, 2020, a split panel of the Third Circuit issued a precedential opinion in Hargrove v. Sleepy’s LLC, reversing the denial of class certification because the district court “misapplied” the Circuit’s ascertainability case law and was “too exacting” when it “essentially demanded” that plaintiffs identify the class members at the certification stage. The circuit court also determined that the district court erroneously applied the motion-for-reconsideration standard to plaintiffs’ renewed motion for class certification, and held that courts should apply “the usual Rule 23 standard.” In Hargrove, the plaintiffs, delivery drivers, brought an employee misclassification suit alleging that defendant misclassified them as independent contractors, rather than employees, and thus violated several New Jersey labor laws. The district court denied class certification, twice, on the ground that the ascertainability requirement was not satisfied. In denying plaintiffs’ renewed motion for certification, the Court held that plaintiffs’ proposed class was “not ascertainable because the records kept by Sleepy’s regarding the identity of the drivers lacked critical information.” The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal pursuant to Rule 23(f), and the Third Circuit granted their request. First, the circuit court addressed the split among the district courts, both in and out of the Third Circuit, on the issue of the standard that applies to renewed motions for class certification....

Connect:

About Gibbons

With 200 attorneys, Gibbons is a leading law firm in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Washington, DC, and Florida, ranked among the nation’s top 200 by The American Lawyer. More…

Archived Blog Posts