We continue to scratch our heads over consumer class actions seeking monetary compensation when the customers received exactly what they paid for.  We see them from time to time in the pharmaceutical space, where patients claim monetary compensation even though the prescription drugs they used worked like they were supposed to with no adverse reactions. 

Say what?

That’s what we thought when we ran across Restatement §920 recently – it was by accident; we were researching something else.

The 900 section of the Second Restatement of Torts is about damages, and §920 has to do with mitigation of damages:

When the defendant’s tortious conduct has caused harm to the plaintiff

Skin in the game.  Horse in the race.  Dog in the hunt.  Whatever “it” is – we don’t have “it” in today’s case.  Ansley v. Banner Health Care is a suit brought by plaintiffs who had received damages awards for injuries that required treatment at various hospitals seeking to enjoin those hospitals from enforcing liens

Last week, in Timbs v. Indiana, ___ S. Ct. ___, 2019 WL 691578 (U.S. Feb. 20, 2019), the Court unanimously held that the Excessive Fines Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Eighth Amendment applies to the states:

Under the Eighth Amendment, “[e]xcessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual

Last month we brought you word of an excellent result (preemption) in a ridiculous case − a class action claiming that the drops in eye-drops are too big.  That decision was in accord with an earlier decision likewise dismissing such claims on preemption grounds. See Thompson v. Allergan USA, Inc., 993 F. Supp.2d 1007

We’ve blogged before about the long-running appeal in the Polett v. Public Communications litigation.  That’s the case where the plaintiff had knee implant surgery that was so successful she agreed to make a promotional video on behalf of the company – but allegedly reinjured her knee during the making of the video.  We pointed out, at the very beginning of our first post, that the plaintiff “frankly, wasn’t all that badly injured” but nonetheless received $27.6 million from a Philadelphia jury.

In the end, that was the reaction of the en banc Pennsylvania Superior Court as well. Last month, in Polett v. Public Communications, Inc., 2016 WL 3154155 (Pa. Super. June 6, 2016), the court (on remand from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court) threw out that whopping verdict because it was just too much money for not enough injury.  The court ordered remittitur in an unspecified amount. Id. at

First, a procedural note. Although the latest Polett opinion is from the en banc Superior Court, it is nonetheless unpublished, and thus non-precedential.  We’ve often thought that the Superior Court overuses unpublished, non-precedential decisions, but Polett takes things to new heights (or depths).  Now, even an en banc decision – which are ordinarily used to overrule prior Superior Court panel decisions – can be unpublished.  That’s a first, and we hope, a last.


Continue Reading

California rejected another attempt by the class action bar to extend the already questionable fraud-on-the-market theory from Basic v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988), a securities class action, to what amount to failure to warn claims for consumer products or, as we’ve seen before, drugs and medical devices.  This time the class action plaintiffs’ bar was focused on e-cigarettes.  See In re NJOY, Inc., Consumer Class Action Litig., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24235 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2016).  A handful of hopeful consumers claimed that they were misled by an e-cigarette’s labeling and were not warned about its ingredients or risks.  Id. at *3.  As is often the case with these types of class action claims, however, the plaintiffs did not allege an injury—well, at least not a physical injury.  They suffered no side effects.  They had no physical ailments.  The risks didn’t affect them.

Continue Reading