Menu

Mass Tort and Product Liability


Overview

Carlton Fields defends Fortune 100 manufacturers in high-stakes mass tort and product liability litigation in state and federal courts nationwide. Our attorneys maintain lead roles in virtually every mass tort portfolio of cases pending in Florida. Examples include the emerging talc and opioid mass tort litigation, as well as asbestos, tobacco, automotive, and a host of pharmaceutical and medical device mass torts. Additionally, we serve our clients as both national and regional counsel, helping to manage, simplify, and globally resolve significant mass torts across jurisdictions. 
 
For more than 30 years, we have helped market-leading clients win or resolve these lawsuits from beginning to end. We have tried more than 100 cases to juries in courts around the country, and work closely with Carlton Fields’ appellate lawyers, many of whom are board certified in appellate law and focus on mass tort and product liability issues. 
 
Our approach emphasizes strategy and case management to minimize the overall financial and reputational costs of these often headline-making cases, which frequently  number in the thousands. With so much at stake, we take a holistic approach to each engagement, weighing the national and global impact of individual case decisions across the entire portfolio to advance our clients’ business and litigation priorities. 

 

All Insights

Innovative Mass Tort Team Resolves Hundreds of Cases and Slashes Defense Costs

Innovative Mass Tort Team Resolves Hundreds of Cases and Slashes Defense Costs

August 15, 2018

A traditional defense strategy would have been time-consuming and costly. Our team had a better idea. 

Food for Thought: A Review of 2017 Litigation

Food for Thought: A Review of 2017 Litigation

May 24, 2018

Food for Thought is a review of significant court decisions affecting the food, beverage, dietary supplements and personal care products industry. Although many cases in this edition focus on class certification, others relate to summary judgment.

Food for Thought: Under California Law, Individual Class Members Need Not Show Reliance on Allegedly Misleading Statements at Time of Purchase

Food for Thought: Under California Law, Individual Class Members Need Not Show Reliance on Allegedly Misleading Statements at Time of Purchase

May 18, 2018

In its latest opinion addressing class action claims related to allegedly misleading labels, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal held that individual class members need not show they relied on allegedly misleading statements for a proposed class action against supplement manufacturer Pharmavite LLC to proceed.

More Product Liability and Antitrust Class Actions, Rising Class Action Spending Among Trends in Latest Class Action Survey

More Product Liability and Antitrust Class Actions, Rising Class Action Spending Among Trends in Latest Class Action Survey

April 23, 2018

The seventh annual Carlton Fields Class Action Survey, released April 24, reveals important issues and trends related to class action matters and management based on interviews with general counsel or senior legal officers at 385 companies of all sizes and business types.

Food for Thought: Starbucks Defeats Icy Class Action

Food for Thought: Starbucks Defeats Icy Class Action

March 27, 2018

The lead plaintiff alleged that Starbucks’ method of preparing its iced beverages deceives its customers by misrepresenting the amount of liquid a customer receives when he or she orders an iced drink.

Food for Thought: For the Second Time, California Federal Court Declines to Certify Class Action Against Baby Food Manufacturer

Food for Thought: For the Second Time, California Federal Court Declines to Certify Class Action Against Baby Food Manufacturer

February 13, 2018

Plaintiff alleged that defendant violated federal and state law by making false and misleading claims on food labels.

Food for Thought: Liability-Only Class Certification Denied for Claims That “No Sugar Added” Juice Labels Misled Consumers Into Thinking the Juice Had Fewer Calories

Food for Thought: Liability-Only Class Certification Denied for Claims That “No Sugar Added” Juice Labels Misled Consumers Into Thinking the Juice Had Fewer Calories

October 16, 2017

Plaintiff’s putative class action alleged that defendant Mott’s violated FDA regulations and California’s Sherman Law and Unfair Competition Law when it labeled and sold its 100 percent apple juice with the label “No Sugar Added,” which plaintiff claimed misled consumers into thinking the juice had fewer calories than its competitors.

Food for Thought: Claim Dismissed Against Brand for Deceptive Label, but Retailer May Still Pay

Food for Thought: Claim Dismissed Against Brand for Deceptive Label, but Retailer May Still Pay

October 9, 2017

A negligent misrepresentation claim against laundry detergent brand The Sun Products Corp., for an allegedly deceptive label was dismissed by a New York federal district judge, while an unjust enrichment claim against retailer Costco Wholesale Corp., was allowed to proceed.

Food for Thought: Summary Judgment Affirmed in False ‘GMO’ Advertising Class Action Against Chipotle

Food for Thought: Summary Judgment Affirmed in False ‘GMO’ Advertising Class Action Against Chipotle

October 4, 2017

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of defendant,

The Shared Economy

The Shared Economy

August 27, 2017

Should the shared economy be regulated and if so, how?

Food for Thought: How Sweet it Is…for Plaintiff Bringing Class Action Against Baby Food Manufacturer

Food for Thought: How Sweet it Is…for Plaintiff Bringing Class Action Against Baby Food Manufacturer

July 17, 2017

Plaintiff alleged that defendant violated federal and state law by making false and misleading claims on food labels, specifically, that certain baby food products included claims about sugar and nutrient content that were not permitted under Food and Drug Administration regulations incorporated into California law.

Ninth Circuit Expands American Pipe Tolling to Subsequent Securities Class Action by Unnamed Class Members, but Leaves Related Comity and Issue Preclusion Questions for Another Day

Ninth Circuit Expands American Pipe Tolling to Subsequent Securities Class Action by Unnamed Class Members, but Leaves Related Comity and Issue Preclusion Questions for Another Day

May 30, 2017

The Ninth Circuit expanded the American Pipe tolling rule (as further expanded by Crown Cork) to allow the individual claims of unnamed class members in a previously dismissed action to proceed as a subsequently filed class action, albeit with two important caveats.

11th Circuit Finds Skim Milk Labeling Restriction Violated Dairy Farm’s First Amendment Rights

11th Circuit Finds Skim Milk Labeling Restriction Violated Dairy Farm’s First Amendment Rights

April 5, 2017

Florida law prohibits dairy producers from labeling milk products “skim milk” unless the product has been artificially refortified with the vitamins it lost during the skimming process. This prohibition was challenged to Florida’s Northern District Court by a small dairy farm on the grounds that the regulation violated the First Amendment.

Food for Thought: A Review of 2016 Litigation

Food for Thought: A Review of 2016 Litigation

February 16, 2017

A federal judge in California declined to dismiss a (renewed) proposed class action case against Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., accusing the company of violating consumer protection laws in California, Florida, Maryland, and New York by deceptively advertising that its menu no longer contained GMOs.

Trial Checklist

Trial Checklist

December 15, 2016

This chart provides a quick reference regarding motions and objections that may be made immediately prior to, during, and immediately after trial to preserve issues for appellate review.

Key Contacts

Other Team Members

Gary L. Sasso

Gary L. Sasso

President and Chief Executive Officer

Featured Insights

Disclaimer

The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.