In Lytle v. Nutramax Laboratories, Inc., 114 F.4th 1011 (9th Cir.), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed two key issues arising in motions for class certification: (1) whether plaintiffs’ proposed unexecuted damages model is sufficient at the class certification stage; and (2) whether plaintiffs adequately demonstrated reliance was provable by common evidence.Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Addresses Damages Models In Lytle v. Nutramax Labs., Inc. Decision
Plastic packaging and food ware are some of the first targets of California’s ambitious and far-reaching program to achieve a “Circular Economy” that reduces waste and pollution. The California Department of Resources, Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) is constructing a complex structure of procedures and requirements to reduce the total amount of plastic used in the state by at least 25 percent, to increase recycling of packaging and food service ware to 65%, and to ensure the use of recyclable or compostable materials in single-use packaging and containers for most products by 2032.Continue Reading California Aims to Revolutionize Packaging and Food Ware: Answers to Key Questions about Recycling, Composting and Source Reduction Requirements
“Best By”, “Use By”, “Sell By” dates. To clarify quality and safety dates on food labels, on September 28, 2024, a new law was enacted in California that requires food manufacturers, processors, and retailers responsible for food labeling to “display a date label to communicate a quality or safety date on a food item manufactured on or after July 1, 2026[.]” This new law does not apply to infant formula, eggs or pasteurized in-shell eggs, beer or other malt beverages. Subject to those exceptions, A.B. 660 provides that for food manufactured on or after July 1, 2026, food labels will be required to display one of these uniform terms:Continue Reading Food Labeling Update: Quality and Safety Dates – Clarifying “Best By” and “Use By”
In the world of class action lawsuits, damages calculations and whether or not prejudgment interest accrues can become high-stakes battlegrounds. These issues are highlighted in the recent Ninth Circuit decision in Montera v. Premier Nutrition Corp. FKA Joint Juice, Inc., Nos. 22-16375, 22-16622, slip op. (9th Cir. Aug. 6, 2024). The case had been appealed by both parties from the Northern District of California in one of the few class actions to go to jury trial. (N.D. Cal. Case No. 3:16-cv-06980-RS.) The plaintiff asserted that “Joint Juice” was misleadingly labeled under New York’s General Business Law (“GBL”) §§ 349 and 350 because the product did not work to improve joint function or to remediate joint pain. The jury awarded the class of consumers full refund damages totaling $1,488,078.49 based on 166,249 units of product sold. The plaintiff then sought statutory damages in the amount of $91 million. This figure was derived by adding the $50 statutory penalty for GBL § 349 violations with the $500 statutory penalty for GBL § 350 violations, multiplied by the 166,249 units sold. The plaintiff also sought prejudgment interest totaling $4,583,004.90 – again far dwarfing the amount of actual damages. The District Court ultimately reduced the award of statutory damages on due process grounds to $50 per violation for a total of $8,312,450 plus prejudgment interest, and an appeal to the Ninth Circuit followed.Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Issues Long-Awaited Montera Decision Applying New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, Confirming “Per Violation” Damages but Striking Prejudgment Interest
After being plagued for two decades with claims brought under the California Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”), recent reforms mean employers may now see a decrease in (though not an elimination of) such claims. PAGA authorizes aggrieved employees to bring a civil action against an employer to recover penalties on behalf of themselves and other employees. Continue Reading PAGA Reform May Curb Appetite for Litigation
On the eve of the July 1, 2024 deadline for businesses to comply with California’s so-called junk fee ban (“SB 478”), Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law SB 1524, which allows restaurants, bars, and other food services businesses that sell directly to consumers to continue using surcharges so long as such fees are “clearly and conspicuously” displayed.Continue Reading California Legislature Eighty-Six’s “Junk Fee Ban,” But Relief May Be Temporary
Franchisors have long grappled with evolving and inconsistent standards for determining when a joint-employer relationship exists such that a franchisor can be liable for labor and employment law claims even when it does not exercise direct control over its franchisees.Continue Reading California’s FAST Act to go, But NLRB Delivers a New Joint-Employer Rule