Category Archives: Motion to Dismiss

Subscribe to Motion to Dismiss RSS Feed

The Injunction Conundrum – When Can a Class Action Plaintiff Sue for Injunctive Relief?

a href=”https://gtlawconsumerproductscounselor.lexblogplatformtwo.com/files/2014/07/shutterstock_153943454.jpg”>As the Supreme Court has tightened the requirements for certifying a damages class action, some in the plaintiff’s bar have responded by focusing on class actions seeking injunctive relief, particularly in cases against consumer products companies.  To certify a class under Rule 23(b)(2), a plaintiff does not have to demonstrate predominance or superiority, and … Continue Reading

Court Rejects Preemption and Primary Jurisdiction Arguments in “All Natural” Case

In our February 12, 2014 post, entitled “Consumer Class Actions Trending From Attacking ‘All Natural’ to ‘Raw,’” we addressed whether claims challenging consumer product advertising as “all natural” were preempted in the absence of specific guidance from the FDA and the mixed results the argument has produced.  In Ault v. J.M. Smucker Co. et al., 2014 … Continue Reading

Former Lance Armstrong Endorsement of Supplement Company FRS Doesn’t Support False Advertising Class Action, Court Rules

On February 25, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dismissed a putative class action against supplement maker The FRS Company and its former endorser, cyclist Lance Armstrong, in the case of Martin v. FRS Company, et al., Case No. CV-13-01456-BRO (MANx).  The Plaintiffs, alleged purchasers of FRS products, claimed that … Continue Reading

Strategy of Offering Refunds to Moot Class Actions Gains Traction

As addressed in a separate post on this blog, the Supreme Court’s decision in Symczyk v. Genesis Healthcare Corp., 133 S.Ct. 1523 (2013) and cases since raised the issue of whether a defendant’s unaccepted offer of judgment for complete relief can moot class actions before a class is certified, which in turn raises the issue … Continue Reading

Hope for Consumer Products Companies Facing ‘Natural’ Class Actions

Greenberg Traurig Shareholder Ed Chansky highlights a recent decision dismissing consumer fraud claims alleging a personal care product was mislabeled as “all natural.”  The key aspects of the decision were: “Natural” is a vague and ambiguous term without a single or universal definition. The plaintiffs’ proposed definition of “natural” as “existing in or produced by … Continue Reading
LexBlog