In a decision denying class certification, the Southern District of California in Conde v. Sensa, spent considerable time discussing how Plaintiff otherwise satisfied the typicality requirement necessary for moving forward with the class action. (See Conde v. Sensa, No. 14-cv-51 JLS WVG, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154031 (S.D. Cal. Sep. 10, 2018)). The Court ultimately denied certification (without prejudice) because it found that Plaintiff failed to show that common issues of fact and law predominated, that a class action was superior to other methods, and that the class was ascertainable, but not before a detailed analysis of why the named Plaintiff would have otherwise satisfied her burden on typicality. Id.
Background
Plaintiffs brought claims alleging that Sensa engaged in false and misleading advertising and marketing, unfair competition, and breach of warranties in relation to Sensa’s various products, marketed as “Wei
Read the full article →
Attorneys asked to research economic loss issues across multiple states may have just hit the jackpot. The court presiding over the General Motors Ignition Switch Multidistrict Litigation recently authored an opinion providing a multistate survey of the law concerning product defect manifestation, incidental damages, and unjust enrichment in the economicRead the full article →
It’s been over 8 years since we launched the Product Liability Monitor. Over that time we’ve written quite a few posts that we hope our readers have found informative, useful, and sometimes amusing. It’s no secret lawyers are slow to change, but we’ve decided it was time for a newRead the full article →
Also contributed by William Schoof* Should an e-commerce firm be held liable for the defects of every item it sells on its global internet marketplace? In Fox v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 3:16-cv-03013, 2018 BL 191355 (M.D. Tenn. May 30, 2018), plaintiffs argued exactly that, and the district court answered with aRead the full article →
also contributed to by Kelsey Watkins* Consumers are interacting with technology to accomplish an increasingly wide variety of daily tasks, whether finding a date with the swipe of a finger or learning the weather from a voice-controlled assistant. These technological advances present potential legal risks for their creators. Indeed, inRead the full article →
