A federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) court in Missouri has issued an order and opinion disposing of defendants’ motion that it reconsider its prior rulings refusing to dismiss some of the bisphenol A-related claims in the case on the basis of federal preemption and primary jurisdiction. In re: Bisphenol-A (BPA) Polycarbonate Plastic Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 1967 (W.D. Mo., decided January 19, 2010). Details about the court’s prior ruling appear in issue 327 of this Update. The court also denied defendants’ motion to certify the issues for immediate interlocutory appeal.

In its opinion, the court clarifies its holding allowing plaintiffs to proceed with their unjust enrichment claims, acknowledging that its prior holding may not have been clear. “The Court did not intend to suggest that all Plaintiffs automatically and necessarily have a valid claim for unjust enrichment. . . . [T]he Court cannot conclude that no purchaser can assert a claim for unjust enrichment. Ultimately, differences in individual circumstances and the content of state laws make it impossible for the Court to hold that all consumers either have or do not have a cause of action as a matter of law.”

About The Author

For decades, manufacturers, distributors and retailers at every link in the food chain have come to Shook, Hardy & Bacon to partner with a legal team that understands the issues they face in today's evolving food production industry. Shook attorneys work with some of the world's largest food, beverage and agribusiness companies to establish preventative measures, conduct internal audits, develop public relations strategies, and advance tort reform initiatives.