Langan v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Cos.
897 F.3d 88
2d Cir.2018Background
- Connecticut resident Heidi Langan sued Johnson & Johnson alleging Aveeno Baby "natural" labeling was deceptive and sought class relief under CUTPA and the consumer-protection laws of 20 other states.
- District court denied summary judgment, certified a Rule 23(b)(3) class as to two Aveeno baby bath products (not sunscreens) across eighteen states, and allowed damages and fees claims to proceed.
- Johnson & Johnson obtained interlocutory permission to appeal the certification order under Rule 23(f), challenging Langan's ability to represent out-of-state class members and the court's treatment of multi-state law variations.
- The Second Circuit held Langan has Article III standing to represent out-of-state class members so long as the named plaintiff herself was injured by the defendant; variations in state law are a Rule 23 predominance issue, not a standing deficiency.
- The panel concluded the district court abused its discretion by failing to take the required "close look" at material differences among the eighteen states' consumer-protection laws (e.g., reliance, intent, causation presumptions) and insufficiently explained why such differences would not predominate.
- The Second Circuit vacated certification and remanded for the district court to analyze state-law variations, address whether subclasses are needed, and reevaluate predominance with a fuller explanation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing to represent out-of-state class members | Langan argued her individual CUTPA injury suffices; multi-state representation is a Rule 23 matter | J&J argued Langan lacks standing to assert claims under other states' laws | Court: Standing exists; whether out-of-state claims proceed is a Rule 23 predominance inquiry, not an Article III bar |
| Whether Rule 23(b)(3) predominance is satisfied given multi-state laws | Langan contended the states' consumer-protection laws are similar enough and common issues predominate | J&J argued material differences (reliance, intent, causation presumptions) defeat predominance and class manageability | Court: District court failed to adequately analyze differences; vacated certification and remanded for rigorous predominance analysis |
| Usefulness of subclasses/analysis of subclasses | Langan relied on a single class across states (identified by product, time, location) | J&J suggested subclasses or other mechanisms might be required to address state-law variations | Court: District court must identify and explain any needed subclasses and how they cure predominance concerns on remand |
| Ascertainability/administrative feasibility of class | Langan maintained class is objectively definable by product, dates, and states; affidavits can identify purchasers | J&J argued class is administratively unworkable to identify | Court: Administrative-feasibility argument foreclosed by precedent; class definition sufficiently objective; ascertainability not a bar here |
Key Cases Cited
- In re U.S. Foodservice Inc. Pricing Litig., 729 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2013) (multi-state law variations are a Rule 23 predominance issue)
- Mahon v. Ticor Title Ins. Co., 683 F.3d 59 (2d Cir. 2012) (plaintiff must have suffered an injury from each defendant sued)
- Morrison v. YTB Int'l, Inc., 649 F.3d 533 (7th Cir. 2011) (multi-state class certification is a manageability/predominance issue, not standing)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (class-action requirements limit when one plaintiff may represent many)
- Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (2013) (district courts must take a "close look" at predominance)
- NECA-IBEW Health & Welfare Fund v. Goldman Sachs & Co., 693 F.3d 145 (2d Cir. 2012) (tension between standing and class-certification questions)
- Sacred Heart Health Sys., Inc. v. Humana Military Healthcare Servs., Inc., 601 F.3d 1159 (11th Cir. 2010) (district courts must undertake serious analysis of state-law variations and subclassing)
- In re Petrobras Sec., 862 F.3d 250 (2d Cir. 2017) (class ascertainability and objective class definitions)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (Article III standing limits federal jurisdiction)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (standing doctrine prevents advisory opinions)