Consumer Asks Ninth Circuit to Review Remand Decision in Tootsie Roll Slack-Fill Suit
January 21, 2021
Plaintiff Elizabeth Maisel has responded to an order to show cause as part of her efforts to appeal a Northern District of California court order denying remand to state court. The plaintiff argued that the court misjudged the amount of damages sought by finding them to be greater than the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) jurisdictional minimum. The case originated last May when the plaintiff filed a California consumer protection and packaging law case against Tootsie Roll Industries, LLC for deceptively packaging two of its candy products, Junior Mints and Sugar Babies, with nonfunctional empty space, or “slack-fill.”
Print this article
A jubilee is the celebration of a special event. For trial lawyers representing plaintiffs, the 2021 political scene in Washington, D.C., is about as special as it gets.
Trial lawyers see unprecedented opportunities in the new Congress to enhance litigation and potentially reap billions of dollars. This potential bonanza, which has largely gone “under the radar,” could end up making some trial lawyers far wealthier but may not be in the nation’s best interests.
The trial lawyers’ 2021 agenda will likely present a mix of new legislation and regulation designed to subject businesses to more lawsuits and potential liability. For example, a long-standing trial lawyer agenda item has been to prohibit the use of pre-dispute arbitration agreements that often serve to resolve disputes more quickly and at lower costs for consumers but may result in lawyers collecting less in legal fees. The organized trial bar has also lobbied to create new ways to sue an ever-
PITTSBURGH – A federal judge has denied a motion to remand a class action lawsuit to state court, one brought by a Pittsburgh man who alleged Walmart unlawfully overcharges its customers taxes on the sale of dietary products.
Christopher Lisowski of Pittsburgh (on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated) first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Oct. 7 versus Walmart Stores, Inc., of Bentonville, Ark.
“On Dec. 29, 2019 plaintiff Lisowski purchased a six-pack of “5-Hour Energy” brand dietary supplement at the Walmart store located at 877 Freeport Road, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff Lisowski’s receipt sets forth a purchase price of $13.48 and description of the dietary supplement purchased by plaintiff Lisowski. He was charged sales tax of $0.94 on the sale,” the suit stated.
District judge Nancy Rosenstengel granted Apple Inc.’s motion to supplement its motion for reconsideration of an order remanding the claim that it profited from individual biometric data to the St. Clair County Circuit Court.
Apple filed its motion for leave to submit supplemental authority in support of its motion to reconsider on Dec. 16 through attorney Raj Shah of Chicago.
Apple argued that the Seventh Circuit accepted an appeal to review a remand order in another lawsuit involving the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) against Clearview Al Inc. on Nov. 18. Plaintiff Thornley’s suit alleges Clearview sold access to a database containing biometric information.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
Congress enacted the Class Action Fairness Act to address perceived problems with the handling of class actions by courts. Among its provisions was one permitting removal of more class action claims to federal court. The Ninth Circuit in particular was unfriendly to these new provisions, but, we had thought, the Supreme Court put the matter to rest in 2014 (See our December 16, 2014 blog), and last year we noted that the Ninth Circuit seemed to have accepted and was applying the standards enunciated by the Supreme Court (See our September 30, 2019 blog).