Judge Cindy Chung, who was nominated by President Biden to the Third Circuit court of appeals, wrote a unanimous opinion that reversed a lower court and ruled that a group of consumers could go forward with a product liability lawsuit against a big corporation that recalled several drug products containing potentially dangerous amounts of benzene. The November 2024 decision was in Huertas v Bayer US LLC.
What happened in this case?
In 2021, pharmaceutical corporation Bayer recalled “millions of dollars worth” of spray products used to treat skin infections after learning that they were “contaminated with benzene,” which can cause cancer. A number of consumers, including Juan Huertas and three others who alleged they purchased products from specific lot numbers that were recalled, filed a products liability class action lawsuit. They seek compensation for the economic losses they have suffered from purchasing products worth much less than they paid for them and will cause other economic harm, such as the cost of replacement products and monitoring for possible disease in the future.
A district judge in New Jersey dismissed the lawsuit for lack of standing at Bayer’s request. The judge claimed that the complaint did not “sufficiently allege facts to support the conclusion” that the consumers have “suffered economic loss.” The consumers appealed the ruling to the Third Circuit.
How did Judge Chung and the Third Circuit rule and why is it important?
Based on a careful review of the complaint and applicable precedent, Judge Chung wrote a unanimous opinion that reversed the lower court as to the four consumers who specifically alleged that they had bought products from among the lots that were recalled by Bayer and held that they can proceed with the product liability case. She explained that these consumers had “plausibly alleged” that they purchased defective products containing benzene, and that such contaminated products cannot be used and thus “are worth less than uncontaminated products,” causing economic injury. To “hold otherwise,” she went on, “would be to conclude that an unusable product is worth the same as a usable one – a conclusion that resists logic.”
Judge Chung’s decision is obviously important to Juan Huertas and the other consumers who sued Bayer, as well as the members of the class that they seek to represent, to recover damages due to the economic injury that they contend Bayer caused. The ruling may also be important in other products liability lawsuits concerning economic injury, particularly in the Third Circuit, which includes New Jersey, Delaware, and Pennsylvania. In addition, the decision serves as a reminder of the importance of confirming fair-minded judges to our federal courts.
In 2021, pharmaceutical corporation Bayer recalled “millions of dollars worth” of spray products used to treat skin infections after learning that they were “contaminated with benzene,” which can cause cancer. A number of consumers, including Juan Huertas and three others who alleged they purchased products from specific lot numbers that were recalled, filed a products liability class action lawsuit. They seek compensation for the economic losses they have suffered from purchasing products worth much less than they paid for them and will cause other economic harm, such as the cost of replacement products and monitoring for possible disease in the future.
A district judge in New Jersey dismissed the lawsuit for lack of standing at Bayer’s request. The judge claimed that the complaint did not “sufficiently allege facts to support the conclusion” that the consumers have “suffered economic loss.” The consumers appealed the ruling to the Third Circuit.
How did Judge Chung and the Third Circuit rule and why is it important?
Based on a careful review of the complaint and applicable precedent, Judge Chung wrote a unanimous opinion that reversed the lower court as to the four consumers who specifically alleged that they had bought products from among the lots that were recalled by Bayer and held that they can proceed with the product liability case. She explained that these consumers had “plausibly alleged” that they purchased defective products containing benzene, and that such contaminated products cannot be used and thus “are worth less than uncontaminated products,” causing economic injury. To “hold otherwise,” she went on, “would be to conclude that an unusable product is worth the same as a usable one – a conclusion that resists logic.”
Judge Chung’s decision is obviously important to Juan Huertas and the other consumers who sued Bayer, as well as the members of the class that they seek to represent, to recover damages due to the economic injury that they contend Bayer caused. The ruling may also be important in other products liability lawsuits concerning economic injury, particularly in the Third Circuit, which includes New Jersey, Delaware, and Pennsylvania. In addition, the decision serves as a reminder of the importance of confirming fair-minded judges to our federal courts.