Brandner v. Abbott Laboratories, et al. Country/Territory United States of America Type of court National - lower court Date Jan 23, 2012 Source UNEP, InforMEA Court name United States District Court, District of Louisiana Seat of court New Orleans Judge Vance, S.S. Reference number 10-cv-03242-SSV-DEK Language English Subject Food & nutrition, Legal questions Keyword Food quality control/food safety Traceability/product tracing Hazardous substances Abstract Plaintiff filed this suit in connection with Abbotts September, 2010 recall of Similac brand infant formula because of the concern that insect parts may have been observed in a batch of finished product. Brandner asserted that she purchased, and her child consumed, Similac that was part of the product recall. Plaintiff contended that during this period her child suffered alleged gastrointestinal problems, which symptoms required numerous visits to a physician, and that she allegedly experienced severe emotional distress upon learning she had fed her child infant formula containing beetles and beetle larvae. Plaintiff's Rule 23 (b)(2) class allegations were dismissed, but plaintiff then sought monetary damages and moved to certify a class on her products liability and redhibition claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). Defendant opposed this certification motion on the grounds that she failed to satisfy the commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation requirements of Rule 23(a), as well as the predominance and superiority requirements of Rule 23(b)(3). The court's focus was on the predominance and superiority issues, and found no need to reach all the other questions. This highly individualized inquiry led the court to conclude that issues common to the class did not predominate and that there was a predominance of individual issues under the product liability claim. The court also found that plaintiff made no showing of how she would try these claims on a class-wide basis. She thus failed to demonstrate how she would overcome the manageability problems posed by claims that require such disparate proof. Accordingly, she had not satisfied the requirement that a class action be superior to other available methods of adjudicating the controversy. Because Brandner has not met her burden of establishing that the proposed class meets the predominance and superiority requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Court denied Brandners motion for class certification and granted Abbotts motion to deny class certification. The court decided that it had subject matter jurisdiction under CERCLA. It had personal jurisdiction over the defendant and the exercise of the said jurisdiction was reasonable. The plaintiffs complaints stated claims under CERCLA upon which relief could be granted. Therefore, the defendants motion to dismiss was denied. Full text COU-158077.pdf