Critical Mass: Calif., NY AGs: Juul Caused Public Nuisance. 'Snap Removals' Get Congress' Attention. Who Represents Walmart in Mass Shooting Lawsuits?
Attorneys general in New York and California filed lawsuits this week against e-cig maker Juul.
November 20, 2019 at 12:55 PM
6 minute read
Welcome to Critical Mass, Law.com's weekly briefing for class action and mass tort attorneys. Attorneys general in New York and California filed lawsuits this week against e-cig maker Juul. What are people saying about the first Congressional hearing over "snap removals?" Find out who the lawyers are in the litigation over the Walmart mass shooting in Texas.
Feel free to reach out to me with your input. You can email me at [email protected], or follow me on Twitter: @abronstadlaw.
SPONSORED BY ALM
Thought Leader in Emergent Technologies Added to Legalweek Keynote Lineup
With a gift of clearly explaining complex—and confusing—technologies, Blockchain researcher Bettina Warburg (Co-Founder and Managing Partner of Warburg Serres Investments and Animal Ventures) joins the keynote line up at Legalweek New York. READ MORE
|
States Sue Juul For Creating a Public Nuisance
State attorneys general now are suing e-cigarette maker Juul Labs, most recently New York Attorney General Letitia James, who announced a lawsuit on Tuesday. Juul, in marketing its products to children, helped create what she called the "teen vaping epidemic." She said she decided to sue after the first New York resident, a 17-year-old from the Bronx, died last month due to vaping.
The suit comes one day after California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and Los Angeles County District Attorney Jackie Lacey brought a separate case against Juul.
The New York and California cases bring numerous claims, including public nuisance, for which they seek abatement to cover costs associated with the vaping epidemic.
"I am prepared to use every legal tool in our arsenal to protect the health and safety of our youth," James said in a statement.
North Carolina was the first state to sue Juul earlier this year. In August, Attorney General Josh Stein filed eight more lawsuits against other e-cigarette companies, some of which have shut down.
The cases are all in state courts, separate from the multidistrict litigation pending in federal court in San Francisco, where U.S. District Judge William Orrick has given attorneys until Dec. 19 to provide an "initial census" of the cases before appointing lead counsel.
|
Congress Hears Snapshot of "Snap Removals."
The U.S. House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet held the first Congressional hearing on "snap removals," which are increasingly prevalent, particularly in product liability and mass tort actions, as more courts transition to electronic filings. The practice, approved by at least two federal circuit courts of appeal, refers to when defendants remove certain cases to federal court before being "properly joined and served" with a lawsuit in state court.
Here's where you can watch the hearing, which featured witnesses Ellen Relkin (Weitz & Luxenberg), Kaspar Stoffelmayr (Bartlit Beck), Arthur Hellman (University of Pittsburgh School of Law) and James Pfander (Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law).
Here's some responses to the hearing:
American Association for Justice CEO Linda Lipsen: "Corporate defendants are going to extreme lengths to preserve snap removal as a tool to avoid accountability, including fleeing in the opposite direction when they see complaints about to be served. And instances of this tactic continue to skyrocket, delaying justice for victims and creating an imbalance between injured parties and corporations."
DRI President Philip Willman: "The beneficiaries of the proposal in question are not traditional plaintiffs who chose to file a lawsuit in their local state court. Instead, the actual beneficiaries are a small group of entrepreneurial plaintiffs who forum shop for a state court that they believe will be most favorable to their case."
|
Who Got the Work?
Walmart has turned to Laura Enriquez (Mounce, Green) to represent the retailer in lawsuits brought by the families of victims of the Aug. 3 mass shooting at its store in El Paso, Texas, as well as in a counterclaim against the shooter. That's according to this story by my colleague Angela Morris, who also reported on attorneys representing 36 plaintiffs, including Patrick Luff (Ammons Law Firm), Stephen Stewart (The Stewart Law Firm), Sandra Reyes (Law Office of Sandra M. Reyes), Brice Burris (Fears Nachawati) and Randy Sorrels (Abraham Watkins).
Here's what else is happening:
Opioid Cost: An Oklahoma judge issued his final judgment on Friday in the first trial over the opioid crisis, ordering Johnson & Johnson to pay $465 million to fund a state abatement program. The dollar figure, reduced by $107 million due to a mathematical error, was less than the original $572 million bench verdict, and the judgment did not adopt the plaintiffs' view that the abatement program should extend for more than a year. Johnson & Johnson also lost its argument that the judgment should apply $355 million in credits based on Oklahoma's settlements with other drug companies in the case. Johnson & Johnson said it plans to appeal.
Equifax Objection: Class action critic Ted Frank has objected to the $1.4 billion data breach settlement with Equifax. In a Tuesday filing, Frank (Center for Class Action Fairness, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute) said the deal unfairly compensates some customers over others and awards excessive fees to plaintiffs' attorneys. Plaintiffs' lawyers have asked for $77.5 million in fees. A final approval hearing is Dec. 19.
Certification Hangups: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed certification of a class action alleging DirecTV called its customers in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The panel found that most of the estimated 16,800 class members lacked standing because, unlike the named plaintiffs, they had not asked DirecTV to stop.
Beef Bummer: A Georgia vegan eater has filed a class action against Burger King alleging its Impossible Whopper was cooked on the same grills as meat patties. David Healy (Dudley, Sellers) represents the plaintiff, Phillip Williams, who filed his lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida.
And speaking of food, I'll be taking a break from Critical Mass next week in lieu of Thanksgiving Day. Thanks again for reading, and I'll be back on Dec. 4!
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Weil Advances 18 to Partner, Largest Class Since 2021
- 2People and Purpose: AbbVie's GC on Leading With Impact and Inspiring Change
- 3Beef Between Two South Florida Law Firms Deepens With Suit Over Defamation
- 4Judge Skips Over Sanctions in Talc Bankruptcy: 'That’s A No'
- 5Hit by Mail Truck: Man Agrees to $1.85M Settlement for Spinal Injuries
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250