A consumer’s state law challenges to statements on the labels as to the efficacy of manufacturers’ sanitizing products were not preempted by 21 U.S.C.S. § 337(a) where the claims did not require the interpretation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, but only required a factual determination as to whether the statements were false. A motion to strike the Cal. Civ. Code § 1770 claim was granted as the consumer failed to show that she satisfied the notice requirements.
Outcome
Motion to dismiss by Los Angeles litigation lawyer denied. Motion to strike granted in part and denied in part.
Overview
HOLDINGS: [1]-In plaintiff’s putative class action on various labor violation claims, defendant employer was granted summary judgment on plaintiff employee’s overtime claim because plaintiff offered no evidence of actual hours he worked for which he was not compensated or that defendant knew of any overtime and failed to pay it; [2]-There were triable issue of fact on plaintiff’s meal break, rest period, and wage statement claims; [3]-Plaintiff could not recover under Cal. Civ. Code § 9560 because he was not a laborer; [4]-Plaintiff sufficiently exhausted his administrative remedies under Cal. Lab. Code § 2698 for his Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claim; [5]-Plaintiff’s representative PAGA claim could proceed without Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 certification and the previous denial of class certification did not preclude plaintiff’s representative PAGA claim.
Outcome
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part, and defendant’s motions to strike were rendered moot.
