Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.
Juul Youth Marketing Multidistrict Litigation Overview:
- Why: The judge said the executives are not the appropriate defendants for those claims.
- Who: A federal judge tossed product liability claims in two class action lawsuits against Juul company executives.
- Where: The multidistrict litigation was dismissed in California federal court.
In agreement with Juul’s motions to dismiss, a federal judge tossed product liability claims in two class action lawsuits against the company’s executives, ruling that the three executives named in the complaints are not the appropriate defendants for those claims.
U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick determined that the plaintiffs in the two cases failed to cite relevant laws or authorities under Louisiana and Mississippi law, respectively, that would allow the claims to move forward against Juul board members Nicholas Pritzker and Riaz Valani and former director Hoyoung Huh.
Judge Orrick’s ruling marks the second time he has dismissed these personal injury claims. In 2021, he dismissed the claims in agreement with Juul’s previous motions to dismiss but allowed the plaintiffs to amend their claims.
The two class action lawsuits are part of larger multidistrict litigation. The litigation claims that Juul Labs Inc. (JLI) and Altria Group Inc. misled the public into thinking that e-cigarettes are safer than traditional tobacco products. Instead, the products contained higher doses of nicotine.
Plaintiffs Miss the Mark With Personal Injury Claims
The Louisiana case, brought forward by plaintiff Jacob Fairess, sought to blame the executives for a product-type failure to warn and personal injuries. However, Judge Orrick determined that the executives acted only through the manufacturer, JLI, and could not be held independently liable.
Similarly, the claims in the Mississippi case with plaintiff Jayme Wesfaul could not be made against the executives independently of JLI.
Further, Fairness and Wesfaul made claims of fraud and negligence that stemmed from their claims of personal injury. Since Judge Orrick ruled there are no grounds to keep the personal injury claims, the fraud and negligence claims were also tossed.
However, Judge Orrick upheld claims of fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud made by a third plaintiff, known as G.F., in a Connecticut class action. Judge Orrick found that these claims are supported by Connecticut law and that the complaint was filed properly, disagreeing with Juul’s arguments in their motion to dismiss G.F.’s claims.
Have you been affected by Juul’s tobacco products? Tell us about it in the comments section below!
The plaintiffs are represented by Sarah R. London of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP; Dena Sharp of Girard Sharp LLP; Dean Kawamoto of Keller Rohrback LLP; and Ellen Relkin of Weitz & Luxenberg PC.
The Juul Youth Marketing Multidistrict Litigation is In Re: Juul Labs, Inc., Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 19-md-02913-WHO, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Don’t Miss Out!
Check out our list of Class Action Lawsuits and Class Action Settlements you may qualify to join!
Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:
- Juul Class Actions Lodged by Two More School Districts Claiming Co Misrepresents Safety of Its Vaping Devices, Targets Youth
- $15M Awarded in Lawsuit Over E-Cig Battery Explosion Injuries
- Juul Wants School Districts To Go First In MDL Bellwether Trials Concerning Vaping Device Claims
- More Plaintiffs, Including Minors and School Districts, Join Multidistrict Litigation Against Juul
