Product Liability Update: January 2016
January 31, 2016
Foley Hoag's Product Liability Update is a quarterly update concerning developments in product liability and related law of interest to product manufacturers and sellers. If you find this update useful, please encourage your colleagues and contacts to also register with us on our Web site. As always, you can access all of our publications at www.foleyhoag.com.
Included in this Issue:
- Supreme Court Holds Defendant Cannot Moot Putative Class Action by Making Unaccepted Offer of Judgment for Complete Relief to Representative Plaintiff
- First Circuit Affirms Class Action Settlement Despite Disparity Between Refund Estimate in Class Notice and Actual Refund, Proof-of-Purchase Requirement for Objectors But Not Certain Claimants and Attorneys’ Fee Award Following Defendant’s Agreement Not to Oppose
- Massachusetts Federal Court Finds Hospital Implanting Surgical Device Not Fraudulently Joined to Defeat Diversity Jurisdiction Where (1) It Was Plausible Massachusetts Would Recognize Breach of Warranty Claim Against Hospital, (2) Preemption and Statute of Limitations Defenses Were Not Unique to Hospital, (3) Plaintiff’s Claims Were Not Preempted Because “Parallel” To Federal Law and (4) Claims Were Timely Under “Discovery Rule”
- Massachusetts Federal Court Applies Massachusetts Statute of Limitations to Claim Based on Product Use and Injury in Oklahoma, Where Plaintiff Saw Product Advertisement, Bought Product By Phone and Received Worker’s Compensation Benefits in Massachusetts
- Massachusetts Superior Court Applies Law of Colorado As Place of Injury in Claim Against Massachusetts Drug Manufacturer, As Massachusetts Did Not Have More Significant Relationship With Claim; Among Other Things, State’s Product Liability Policy Focused on Deterrence and Compensation Was Not Superior to Colorado’s Policy Balancing Those Concerns With Insurance Cost and Availability Concerns, Resulting in Cap on Non-Economic Damages Awards
Supreme Court Holds Defendant Cannot Moot Putative Class Action by Making Unaccepted Offer of Judgment for Complete Relief to Representative Plaintiff
In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, No. 14-857, 2016 U.S. LEXIS 846 (S. Ct. Jan. 20, 2016), plaintiff filed a putative nationwide class action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging the defendant multimedia developer violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) by sending unsolicited text messages to him and the other class members.