In 1968, the Multidistrict Litigation Act provided the framework for multidistrict litigation (MDL); where civil actions involve “one or more common questions of fact . . . pending in different districts, such actions may be transferred to any district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.” 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a).
Michigan Grapples With Airport Authority Over Application of Federal Officer Removal Statute in PFAS Litigation
For the last several months, the Gerald R. Ford International Airport Authority (Airport) in Grand Rapids, Michigan, has been locked in an appellate battle with Michigan’s Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy and State Attorney General Dana Nessel (collectively, Michigan) over whether the Airport may remove Michigan’s lawsuit over the Airport’s use of PFAS[1]-containing firefighting foam based on the federal officer removal doctrine.
On August 15, 2023, the Missouri Supreme Court in State ex rel. Monsanto Co. v. Mullen, No. SC99942 (Mo. Aug. 15, 2023) (en banc), clarified competing interpretations of Mo. Rev. Stat. 508.010.5(1) (2016) with regard to the proper venue for defendant corporations sued by plaintiffs alleging first injury outside the state of Missouri. In the opinion, the Missouri Supreme Court held that venue is determined based on the location of the defendant corporation’s registered agent at the time the suit is filed, rather than the registered agent’s location on the date of a plaintiff’s first alleged injury, resolving an ambiguity contained in the statute.
A Multidistrict Litigation started by a TikTok trend of individuals breaking into cars recently settled for an estimated $200 million. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants—Hyundai and Kia—knowingly sold defective vehicles that were vulnerable to theft while also asserting that Defendants prioritized profits over safety. The vehicles at issue included 2011-2022 Kia vehicles and 2015-2022 Hyundai vehicles that were equipped with traditional “insert-and-turn” steel key ignition systems. Plaintiffs argued that vehicles lacking immobilizer technology were particularly susceptible to theft. According to Plaintiffs, without an immobilizer, anyone with a USB cable could steal the vehicle. Plaintiffs’ lawsuit encompassed various claims, including consumer fraud, unjust enrichment, and deceptive trade practices.
The Middle District of Pennsylvania’s opinion in Gorton v. Warren Pumps, LLC supported the government contractor defense and set forth a road map for defendants to follow to win summary judgment. The court, relying on the Supreme Court case, Boyle v. United Technologies Corporation, and applying admiralty law, held the government contractor defense was applicable to Plaintiff’s claims for product liability, breach of implied warranty, and negligence. In Groton, Defendant Warren Pumps moved for summary judgment asserting the government contractor defense. The court, after analyzing the record and standards for the defense, granted summary judgment in Warren Pumps’ favor.
On March 16, 2023, the New York City Asbestos Litigation (NYCAL) Court denied Defendant Kaiser Gypsum’s post-trial motions following a $15M plaintiffs’ verdict in the matter of Munir Seen, New York Supreme Court, New York County, Index No. 190225/2018. Kaiser Gypsum moved for: 1) a judgment notwithstanding the verdict; 2) an order for a new trial; or, alternatively, 3) a remittitur of what Kaiser Gypsum called a clearly excessive verdict. All were denied.
On January 5, 2023, a Louisiana appellate court issued a divided opinion that addressed the nature of take-home asbestos claims. Pete v. Bolan Marine & Manufacturing Co., LLC, 2021-0626 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/5/23), 2023 La. App. LEXIS 2* (La. Ct. App. Jan. 5, 2023). Despite an order limiting Plaintiff’s ability to rely on take-home exposure in proving his claims, a Louisiana appellate court affirmed a jury award of $10.35M in finding that Plaintiff’s take-home exposure was a substantial contributing factor in the development of his mesothelioma.
On December 16, 2022, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a ruling in Brandt v. Pompa that may call into question the applicability of Ohio’s non-economic damages cap in future tort actions. Under tort reform enacted in Ohio in 2005, R.C. 2315.18 (B)(2) expressly limits non-economic damages to $250,000, or an amount equal to three times the economic loss for a maximum of $350,000 per plaintiff, with a $500,000 limit per occurrence. The Court had previously ruled the cap constitutional on its face. In Brandt, the Supreme Court found the non-economic damages caps unconstitutional as applied to a victim of childhood sexual assault who suffered lengthy and severe psychological trauma.