Monthly Archives January 2014

We're very fortunate  to work with some supremely talented lawyers here at Shook, Hardy & Bacon.  One such lawyer is Rebecca Schwartz, who has recently obtained some superb results for her clients in the data security and privacy context.  We leapt at the opportunity for her to provide this guest post about the current state of the law in using Rule 68 Offers of Judgment in the Eighth Circuit: Mechanics of Rule 68.  The mechanics of Rule 68 are straightforward.  Under Rule 68, “a party defending against a claim may serve on an opposing party an offer to allow judgment on specified terms, with the costs then accrued.”  Fed. R. Civ. P. 68.  If the offer is accepted by written notice within 14 days, proof is to be filed with the court and the clerk must enter judgment.  Id.  If an offer is not accepted within 14 days, it is…

Happy belated New Year everyone.  We had a great first year here at the Missouri Kansas Class Action Blog and look to continue the trend into 2014.  Let's start off the new year with a look at a recent Supreme Court opinion involving the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA).  Although the 2012-13 term produced some important class action jurisprudence from the nation's highest court (which we wrote about here and here), the Supreme Court's decision in Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., No. 12-1036 (U.S. Jan. 14, 2014) will probably not affect most practitioners; it is, however, blog-worthy because the Court resolved a circuit split on the issue and arguably narrows the reach of the statute based on the its plain meaning. In the case, the Mississippi attorney general filed a parens patriae action in state court against several liquid crystal display (LCD) manufacturers for violating state antitrust and consumer protection…

Plaintiff fed his dog Beneful Healthy Weight dog food, and within two weeks, his dog was lethargic, incontinent, and hematuric (blood in urine).  The vet recommended a medicated dog food, and the symptoms disappeared. Plaintiff filed a putative class action under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA), alleging that Purina misrepresented its Beneful brand dog food as "healthy," "wholesome," "nutritious," and "100% Complete Nutrition," and failed to disclose that the dog food caused, or carried the risk of, illness and death in a significant number of dogs. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, based on Twombly and Rule (9b).  The Court granted the motion (with leave to amend). On Twombly grounds, the Court found that the Complaint failed to set for a plausible claim -- specifically there was no causation alleged: Nothing in the Complaint alleges that the veterinarian diagnosed the bladder stones because of the certain type of dog food…

Close