Morrison & Foerster LLP - Class Dismissed

Warning Labels Suit Not Suitable for Preliminary Injunction

In American Beverage Association v. City and County of San Francisco, No. 3:15-cv-03415-EMC, decided on May 17, 2016, Northern District Judge Edward Chen denied a preliminary injunction against enforcement of a San Francisco…more
| Civil Procedure, Civil Remedies, Communications & Media Law, Constitutional Law, Consumer Protection

First Circuit Issues Potentially Significant Ruling on Federal Video Privacy Statute’s Application to Mobile Apps

The First Circuit Court of Appeals’ recent decision in Yershov v. Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc., — F.3d —-, Case No. 15-1719, 2016 WL 1719825 (1st Cir. Apr. 29, 2016), may carry important implications for mobile…more
| Civil Procedure, Communications & Media Law, Consumer Protection, Privacy, Science, Computers, & Technology

LogMeIn Class Action Dismissed: Termination of Free App Not False Advertising

A judge in the Eastern District of California recently dismissed a class action filed against LogMeIn based on the company’s decision to terminate its free app, which allowed users to access a remote desktop computer via a…more
| Business Torts, Civil Procedure, Communications & Media Law, Consumer Protection

Still Waiting—FDA Delays Rulemaking

The FDA recently announced that it would once again delay promulgation of its proposed rule for generic drug labeling obligations. This action followed introduction of a spending bill that would have blocked funding for the rule…more
| Administrative Law, Consumer Protection, Health, Products Liability, Science, Computers, & Technology

The Devil’s in the Details: Court Dismisses “Made in the U.S.A.” Fraud Claims against Heinz Because Plaintiff Failed to Allege Specific Facts and Lacked Standing to Sue for Products She Did Not Purchase

On April 22, 2016, in Alaei v. Kraft Heinz Food Co. (“Heinz”), No. 3:15-cv-02961, Southern District of California Judge Michael M. Anello granted defendant Heinz’s motion to dismiss without prejudice plaintiff Suzanne Alaei’s…more
| Civil Procedure, Communications & Media Law, Constitutional Law, Consumer Protection, Business Torts

Generalized Products Liability Claims Not Viable Post-Spokeo

The Supreme Court case Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins reaffirmed and clarified the requirements necessary for plaintiffs to establish standing. As evidenced by the recent First Circuit case Hochendoner v. Genzyme Corp., the analysis…more
| Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Products Liability

California Court of Appeal Finds AG’s Privacy Suit Over Fly Delta Mobile App Is Preempted

In a recent ruling, California’s Court of Appeal unanimously affirmed the dismissal of California’s complaint against Delta Air Lines, Inc. (“Delta”), which alleged that the company’s Fly Delta mobile application violated…more
| Civil Procedure, Conflict of Laws, Consumer Protection, Privacy, Transportation

A Tall Drink of Water: Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Costco VitaRain Class Action on Plausibility and Causation Grounds

On May 5, 2016, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision to dismiss, without leave to amend, a class action complaint alleging a violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act against Costco for the deceptive…more
| Civil Procedure, Communications & Media Law, Consumer Protection, Products Liability

No Capacity and No Liability: Court Rules Dialing System Is Not Subject to TCPA and Verizon Is Not Vicariously Liable

In its July 2015 declaratory ruling, the FCC significantly broadened the TCPA’s definition of an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) to encompass not only equipment with the “present ability to dial randomly or…more
| Civil Procedure, Communications & Media Law, Consumer Protection, Privacy

Class Dismissed . . . But not Quite: Supreme Court to Review Appealability of Class Certification Denials When Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss Case

Does a federal court have jurisdiction to review an order denying class certification after the named plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss their claims with prejudice? That is the question the Supreme Court will consider in Microsoft…more
| Civil Procedure

No Method to the Mootness: Ninth Circuit Rejects Allstate’s Effort to Moot Class Action Claims

On April 12, 2016, in Chen, et al. v. Allstate Insurance Co., No. 13-16816, the Ninth Circuit considered whether an unaccepted offer of judgment and tender of payment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 to fully settle—and…more
| Civil Procedure, Civil Remedies, Consumer Protection

FCC issues NPRM on TCPA Exemption for U.S. Government Debt

In response to a provision in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (Pub. L. No. 114-74), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the “Commission”) has promulgated a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding the new…more
| Communications & Media Law, Finance & Banking

FTC Targets “All Natural” and “100% Natural” Claims on Personal Care Products

As we have previously reported, FDA is currently seeking public comments on the use of the term “natural” on food labeling. The announcement came as a surprise since FDA had previously declined requests from consumers, the food…more
| Antitrust & Trade Regulation, Communications & Media Law, Consumer Protection, Products Liability

Keeping it in Court: Unaccepted Offer of Judgment Doesn’t Moot Class Claims

On April 6, 2016, the Third Circuit, in Weitzner v. Sanofi Pasteur, Inc., considered whether an offer of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 moots a plaintiff’s entire action, including class claims, thereby…more
| Civil Procedure, Communications & Media Law

Statute of Limitations Taking the Steam out of CPSC-Backed Enforcement Action

It is no secret that the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is ramping up its efforts to enforce various aspects of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), especially the provisions about a company’s failure to…more
| Civil Procedure, Civil Remedies, Consumer Protection, Products Liability
Showing 1-15 of 131 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 9
Contact

425 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-2482, United States

  • (415) 268-7000
  • (415) 268-7522

Areas of Practice
  • Class Action
  • Environmental Law
  • Health
  • Litigation
  • Products Liability
Locations
Other U.S. Locations
  • California
  • Colorado
  • D.C.
  • New York
  • Virginia
Other Countries
  • Belgium
  • China
  • Hong Kong
  • Japan
  • United Kingdom
Number of Attorneys

1,000+ Attorneys

This profile may constitute attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Any correspondence with this profile holder does not constitute a client/attorney relationship. Neither the content on this profile nor transmissions between you and the profile holder through this profile are intended to provide legal or other advice or to create an attorney-client relationship.

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
×