Justia Consumer Law Opinion Summaries

Issiah Andra, a Missouri resident, filed a petition against Texas-based Left Gate Property Holding, Inc. after Andra purchased on eBay a vehicle from Left Gate that did not meet Andra’s expectations. The circuit court dismissed the petition for lack of personal jurisdiction over Left Gate. Andra appealed, arguing that Left Gate had sufficient minimum contacts with Missouri to be subject to personal jurisdiction in Missouri in accordance with the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Left Gate’s conduct in Missouri fell within Missouri’s long-arm statute, and Left Gate had sufficient minimum contacts with Missouri to satisfy the due process clause. View "Andra v. Left Gate Prop. Holding, Inc." on Justia Law

When two of Price Chopper’s employees saw Deborah Barkley head for the store’s exit without paying for certain items, they confiscated the items and detained her at the store’s security office on suspicion of shoplifting. Approximately forty-five minutes after Barkley was first detained, the police arrested her and escorted her from the store. Barkley was charged with shoplifting but was later acquitted of this charge. Barkley sued Price Chopper, alleging various torts arising out of her detention. At the close of the evidence, Barkley abandoned all of her claims except false imprisonment and battery. The jury found for Price Chopper on both counts. Barkley appealed, arguing that the merchant’s privilege extends to claims of battery, and the privilege ends when the merchant’s property is recovered. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a merchant is privileged to detain a person in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time if the merchant has probable cause to believe that person is shoplifting, and the merchant may continue the detention after the property is recovered to determine whether the person was actually shoplifting and to summon the police and instigate criminal proceedings. View "Barkley v. McKeever Enters., Inc." on Justia Law

In this putative class action against the manufacturer of Lexapro, Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Plaintiffs claimed that Lexapro’s FDA-approved drug label misleads California consumers by omitting material efficacy information in violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law. As relief, Plaintiffs requested that the court permanently enjoin Forest from continuing to sell or market Lexapro with its current drug label and to direct Forest to seek FDA approval of a new drug label. The district court dismissed the complaint, concluding that claims were barred by California’s safe harbor doctrine. The First Circuit affirmed the judgment dismissing the complaint but on other grounds, holding that federal law impliedly preempts Plaintiffs’ claims because the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act prohibits Forest from independently changing its FDA-approved label to read as Plaintiffs say it should have read in order to comply with California Law. View "Marcus v. Forest Pharms., Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff purchased a Life Fund 5.1, L.L.C. Capital Appreciation Bond from a company that subsequently filed for bankruptcy. More than two years after purchase, plaintiff sued the defendants for misrepresentations and omissions in the sale of securities, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence. The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, ruling that the statute of limitations for each of the plaintiff's claims had run before she brought suit. Plaintiff appealed, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. The question this case presented for the Supreme Court's review was whether the district court erred in granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment based on the expiration of the statutory limitations periods. As a threshold matter, the Court determined when plaintiff's claims accrued and whether the statute of limitations for each claim ran or was tolled from the accrual date based upon the discovery rule. After review, the Court held that defendants did not submit sufficient evidentiary material to support their arguments as to when the statute of limitations began to run on each claim. Therefore the Court reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Horton v. Hamilton" on Justia Law

After experiencing problems with his Mercedes-Benz that required multiple repair attempts, MacQuiddy filed suit under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civ. Code, 1790) and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (15 U.S.C. 2301), seeking a refund for the car and a civil penalty for the alleged willful violation of the Act. Mercedes-Benz admitted it had not been able to conform the car to the applicable warranties within the time frames set forth in the Act and that it had not yet replaced the car or made restitution, but asserted it would offer to reimburse MacQuiddy as required under the Act. MacQuiddy subsequently rejected a statutory offer to compromise in which Mercedes-Benz offered to repurchase the car for an amount consistent with the Act, and to pay MacQuiddy’s attorney fees and costs incurred up to that point. A jury found Mercedes-Benz did not willfully fail to comply with the Act. The court of appeal affirmed in part, but reversed an order denying MacQuiddy costs and awarding costs to Mercedes-Benz. On remand, the court is to permit MacQuiddy to file a new Memorandum of Costs, and to recalculate such costs without regard to Mercedes-Benz’s section 998 offer. An order denying attorney fees was affirmed. View "MacQuiddy v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC" on Justia Law

Defendant financed his purchase of a used car with a retail installment loan from Plaintiff. Defendant defaulted on the loan, so Plaintiff repossessed the car and sold it. Plaintiff then brought this action against Defendant seeking a deficiency judgment, interest, and attorney’s fees. The trial court awarded Plaintiff compensatory damages and costs and attorney’s fees. The court also awarded prejudgment interest under Conn. Gen. Stat. 37-1 at the contract rate of 9.14 percent and discretionary postjudgment interest under Conn. Gen. Stat. 37-3a at an annual rate of two percent. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly awarded discretionary postjudgment interest pursuant to section 37-3a. The Appellate Court affirmed, determining that the entry of judgment terminated the accrual of postmaturity interest on the loan, leaving any award of postjudgment interest to the trial court’s discretionary powers under Conn. Gen. Stat. 37-3a(a). The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the Appellate Court improperly concluded that postmaturity interest terminates upon the entry of judgment in the absence of a specific agreement for postjudgment interest; and (2) because the parties’ loan contract did not disclaim postmaturity interest Plaintiff was entitled to postmaturity interest under section 37-1(b). View "Sikorsky Fin. Credit Union, Inc. v. Butts" on Justia Law

AstraZeneca, which sells a heartburn drug called Nexium, and three generic drug companies (“generic defendants”) that sought to market generic forms of Nexium, entered into settlement agreements in which the generic defendants agreed not to challenge the validity of the Nexium patents and to delay the launch of their generic products. Certain union health and welfare funds that reimburse plan members for prescription drugs (the named plaintiffs) alleged that the settlement agreements constituted unlawful agreements between Nexium and the generic defendants not to compete. Plaintiffs sought class certification for a class of third-party payors, such as the named plaintiffs, and individual consumers. The district court certified a class. Relevant to this appeal, the class included individual consumers who would have continued to purchase branded Nexium for the same price after generic entry. The First Circuit affirmed the class certification, holding (1) class certification is permissible even if the class includes a de minimis number of uninjured parties; (2) the number of uninjured class members in this case was not significant enough to justify denial of certification; and (3) only injured class members will recover. View "In re Nexium Antitrust Litig." on Justia Law

McHughes Law Firm filed a lawsuit on behalf of Precision Analytics, Inc., McHughes’ client, against Lillie McMullen asserting that McMullen was responsible for a consumer debt incurred on a credit card issued to her ex-husband. After that lawsuit was dismissed, McMullen filed a complaint against McHughes, alleging that McHughes violated the Arkansas Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and that McHughes invaded her privacy and engaged in malicious prosecution while attempting to collect on the consumer debt owned by Precision. The circuit court dismissed the complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that McMullen’s complaint failed to meet the pleading requirements of Ark. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1) and that McMullen failed to allege facts to establish various elements of her state-law claims. View "McMullen v. McHughes Law Firm" on Justia Law

Lewis filed a putative class action complaint for damages for violation of the Credit Card Act, Civ. Code, 1747, alleging that he purchased an alcoholic beverage, using a credit card for the purchase. The clerk requested personal identification information in the form of Lewis’s birth date. Lewis believed he was required to provide that information. The clerk entered Lewis’s birth date into the computerized cash register. Although the store was required by Business and Professions Code section 25660 to verify that a purchaser of alcohol is not under the age of 21, there is no legal requirement that the information be recorded. Most retailers selling alcoholic beverages do not record date of birth information. The store was not contractually obligated to provide personal identifying information in order to complete a credit card transaction. The trial court dismissed and the court of appeal affirmed, acknowledging that the Act prohibits requesting or requiring a purchaser to write any personal identifying information on the credit card transaction form “or otherwise,” and requesting or requiring a purchaser to provide personal identifying information which is recorded upon the credit card transaction form “or otherwise.” The prohibitions do not apply to purchases of alcoholic beverages. View "Lewis v. Jinon Corp." on Justia Law

Exactly three years after borrowing money to refinance their home mortgage, the Jesinoskis sent the lender a letter purporting to rescind the transaction. The lender replied, refusing to acknowledge the rescission’s validity. One year and one day later, the Jesinoskis filed suit, seeking a declaration of rescission and damages. The district court entered judgment on the pleadings, concluding that a borrower can exercise the Truth in Lending Act’s right to rescind, 15 U. S. C.1635(a), (f), only by filing a lawsuit within three years of the date the loan was consummated. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The unanimous Supreme Court reversed. A borrower exercising his right to rescind under the Act need only provide written notice to his lender within the 3-year period, not file suit within that period. Section 1635(a)’s language: a borrower “shall have the right to rescind . . . by notifying the creditor . . . of his intention to do so,” indicates that rescission is effected when the borrower notifies the creditor of his intention. The statute says nothing about how that right is exercised and does not state that rescission is necessarily a consequence of judicial action. View "Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc." on Justia Law