Ecolex Logo
The gateway to
environmental law
Search results » Jurisprudence

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 Abbott’s 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 Brandner’s motion for class certification and granted Abbott’s 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 plaintiff’s complaints stated claims under CERCLA upon which relief could be granted. Therefore, the defendant’s motion to dismiss was denied.
Full text
COU-158077.pdf