MDL Panel Hears a Chorus of 'Massive' and 'Complex' Cases Against Juul
Dozens of lawyers suing electronic cigarette maker Juul Labs Inc. packed a Los Angeles courtroom Thursday to convince the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation which judge should hear the cases. The MDL panel also heard arguments about the data breach class actions against Capital One.
September 26, 2019 at 06:04 PM
5 minute read
Dozens of lawyers suing electronic cigarette maker Juul Labs Inc. packed a large courtroom in downtown Los Angeles on Thursday to convince the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation which judge should hear the cases.
About 55 lawsuits brought against Juul across the country were among the matters before the MDL panel, including class actions brought over Capital One's data breach last year. At Thursday's hearing, lawyers in the Juul cases filled half the courtroom, which was standing room only. Many cited recent news about Juul as reasons for a certain judge.
"This is a massive litigation: It is massively complex, and we're in the early stages," said Andy Birchfield, of Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles. "The case is growing more complex day by day."
On Wednesday, Juul announced that CEO Kevin Burns would step down immediately and the company would suspend all advertisements of its products. The new CEO, K.C. Crosthwaite, comes from Philip Morris USA parent corporation Altria Group Inc., which has a 35% stake in Juul.
The hearing also comes as stores like Walmart have stopped selling e-cigarettes and vaping products and cities and states have banned the products. Juul also faces mounting regulatory pressure from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which is investigating Juul's marketing claims to children, as have many state attorneys general.
MDL panel chairwoman Sarah Vance, who sits on the Eastern District of Louisiana, started the morning by announcing this would be her last hearing as head of the MDL panel. U.S. District Judge Karen Caldwell of the Eastern District of Kentucky a current panelist, will be the new chairwoman.
When the Juul cases came up, defense attorney Austin Schwing, a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in San Francisco, said he would prefer the cases go near his client's headquarters in San Francisco before U.S. District Judge William Orrick of the Northern District of California, but was open to U.S. District Judge Brian Martinotti of the District of New Jersey.
Some plaintiffs lawyers supported Orrick, including Elizabeth Cabraser of San Francisco's Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein. In briefs before the panel, she had initially advocated that Orrick oversee the class actions, which alleged Juul's misleading marketing failed to disclose the nicotine in its products, causing young adults and teenagers to get addicted, while Martinotti could hear the personal injury cases whose claims focused on pulmonary disease, seizures and other serious health problems.
Now, she said, the cases were too massive and complex to be divided.
"Events in the past few minutes have overtaken me," she said Thursday.
Birchfield, who also changed his mind about dividing the cases, said "we need an experienced hand" as a judge. He supported Martinotti, who served as one of three judges overseeing mass torts in New Jersey state court's Multicounty Litigation Center before his appointment to the federal bench in 2016.
One district that got a poor reception from the panel was Maryland, where U.S. District Judge Paul Grimm of the District of Maryland issued a groundbreaking ruling earlier this year against the FDA over the timeline of its approval of e-cigarettes. Scott Schlesinger, of Schlesinger Law Offices in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, attempted to convince the panel that regulatory action involving e-cigarettes, such as the one at issue in that case, were significant to the lawsuits, but several of the judges struggled to understand his argument.
The Capital One breach compromised the personal information, including Social Security numbers, of 100 million customers in the United States and 6 million in Canada. Regarding those cases, which number more than 50, the panel asked several questions about how much coordination was necessary with a criminal case in Seattle, where Paige Thompson, the alleged hacker, is set to go to trial Nov. 4. Tina Wolfson of Ahdoot & Wolfson in Los Angeles argued that the criminal case required the lawsuits go to the Western District of Washington.
Other lawyers disagreed. Morgan & Morgan's John Yanchunis, in Tampa, Florida, said the criminal case was "not the important focus" of the data breach cases. He and other lawyers, including David Balser for Capital One, argued instead over whether the panel should send the cases to the Alexandria or Richmond division of the Eastern District of Virginia. Capital One's headquarters is in McLean, Virginia.
Balser, an Atlanta partner at King & Spalding, said the Alexandria division was "by far" the most logical forum, given that the servers at Amazon Web Services were located there and discovery in the criminal case was "up in the air right now."
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 AllApple Asks Judge to 'Follow the Majority Practice' in Dismissing Patent Dispute Over Night Vision Technology
AI Startup Founder Defrauded Investors of Millions, US Prosecutors Say
3 minute readUber Not Responsible for Turning Over Information on 'Dangerous Riders' to Competitor, Judge Finds
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Where Do Web-Tracking Class Actions Belong? 8th Circuit Weighs the Issue
- 2While Data Breaches May Lead to Years of Legal Battles, Cyberattacks Can be Prevented
- 3The Definition of Special Employment
- 4People in the News—Nov. 21, 2024—Willig Williams, Hangley Aronchick
- 5Rawle & Henderson Hires New Del. Managing Partner
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