Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Valentino v. Carter-Wallace, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureClass ActionsRule 23Products LiabilityRule 23Rule 23(a)Rule 23(b)(3)Rule 23(c)(4)(A)

Facts

Carter-Wallace marketed Felbatol beginning in August 1993 without any special warning of serious side effects. Between January and July 1994, it received reports of aplastic anemia associated with the drug, and in August 1994 it warned physicians of that risk; by September 1994 it had also received reports of liver failure and again warned physicians. The district court conditionally certified a class of all persons who began using Felbatol before August 1, 1994, plus a subclass of users who developed or would develop aplastic anemia or liver failure as a result of using the drug. The named plaintiffs included users with withdrawal difficulties, one alleging liver failure, and one alleging some liver damage, but none alleging aplastic anemia.

Issue

Whether Ninth Circuit law categorically forbids certification of a multistate plaintiff class in a medical products liability case, and if not, whether this particular certification order satisfied Rule 23. More specifically, the question was whether the district court adequately demonstrated predominance, superiority, and the Rule 23(a) representation requirements before certifying issue classes.

Rule

There is no absolute bar in the Ninth Circuit to certifying multistate plaintiff class actions in medical products liability cases. But before certifying a class, including an issue class under Rule 23(c)(4)(A), the district court must rigorously analyze and demonstrate that Rule 23's requirements are met, including that common questions predominate over individual ones, that class treatment is superior to available alternatives, and that the representatives satisfy typicality and adequacy of representation.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a diversity action filed in San Francisco, patients from many states sue North Bay Therapeutics over a prescription patch sold nationwide for nine months. The district court certifies under Rule 23(c)(4)(A) the issues of negligent marketing, failure to warn, and factual causation, while leaving proximate cause and damages for later individual trials, and the order states only that "common issues predominate" because the company used one national ad campaign.

If North Bay appeals, which argument is strongest under the governing rule?

Explanation. The majority held there is no categorical bar to multistate medical-products personal injury classes, but a district court must do more than recite Rule 23(b)(3). Even for an issue class under Rule 23(c)(4)(A), the court must rigorously demonstrate predominance and explain why adjudicating the certified issues will materially advance the litigation. A bare statement that common issues predominate, without analysis of the individualized questions or trial plan, is insufficient. (Derived from Valentino v. Carter-Wallace, Inc. (n.d.).)