Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, STATE UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES—W.D. Wash.: Toothbrush purchasers denied certification of nationwide class, (Oct 15, 2014)

By Jody Coultas, J.D.

The federal district court in Seattle has denied certification of a nationwide class of purchasers of allegedly defective Sonicare powered toothbrushes and related replacement parts under the Washington Consumer Protection Act (WCPA). The denial was based on material differences between the consumer protection laws of the relevant states and the consumers’ inability to demonstrate the predominance or manageability required for class certification (Coe v. Philips Oral Healthcare Inc., October 10, 2014, Pechman, M.).

The consumer alleged that Philips’ Sonicare Diamond Clean, FlexCare, FlexCare+, Healthy White, EasyClean, and Sonicare for Kids powered toothbrushes and related replacement parts were defective. One consumer filed a class action under Washington and New Jersey law, while two other consumers filed a class action with similar claims under Washington, Connecticut, and New York law.

After the consumers filed a consolidated complaint incorporating all claims, Philips asked the court to preemptively deny certification of a single nationwide class under Washington law, and to grant summary judgment on the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) claim and New York General Business Law (GBL) claim.

The court previously held that the consumers stated consumer protection law claims against Philips for allegedly failing to disclose a defect that rendered the toothbrush less effective than advertised.

The court could properly consider the defendant’s motion to preemptively deny certification of certification a single nationwide class under Washington law. The consumers argued that consideration of the motion was premature because they received Philips’ first production of documents on the same day that their opposition to this motion was due. However, the consumers had sufficient time to inform the court of facts relevant to its choice-of-law analysis, and have presented those facts.

Choice of law. The court granted Philips’ motion to deny certification of a nationwide class under Washington law. A conflict exists between the Washington law and the consumer protection laws of the various states where the toothbrushes were purchased and used. Therefore, the court applied Washington’s most significant relationship test in order to determine which law to apply. The home states of the consumers had significant relationships to allegedly deceptive trade practices resulting in injuries to their citizens within their borders. The toothbrushes were sold and purchased, and representations of their quality made and relied on, entirely outside of Washington. Because the consumers’ home states had the most significant relationship to their causes of action, the laws of those states applied to those claims.

CUTPA. The Connecticut consumer’s CUTPA claim was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, according to the court. The court lacked jurisdiction because the WCPA claim was dismissed.

GBL. The New York claims were dismissed as time barred by the three-year statute of limitations, according to the court. The New York purchaser claimed cross-jurisdictional tolling, arguing his New York state law claim was tolled when the New Jersey consumer filed her claims. However, New York state law does not expressly permit cross-jurisdictional tolling. The court declined to allow cross-jurisdictional tolling where New York law was unclear.

The case is No. C13-518 MJP.

Attorneys: Robert I. Lax (Lax LLP) for Amy Coe. Antonia Stamenova-Dancheva (Sullivan & Cromwell), and Jeffrey M. Thomas (Gordon Tilden Thomas & Cordell LLP) for Philips Oral Healthcare Inc.

Companies: Philips Oral Healthcare Inc.

Cases: StateUnfairTradePractices WashingtonNews