Langan v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc.

Justia Dockets & Filings Second Circuit Connecticut District Court Langan v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc.

Langan v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc.

Plaintiff:	Heidi Langan
Defendant:	Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc.
Case Number:	3:2013cv01471
Filed:	October 7, 2013
Court:	US District Court for the District of Connecticut
Office:	New Haven Office
County:	Fairfield
Presiding Judge:	Robert N. Chatigny
Nature of Suit:	Other Fraud
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1332
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
March 13, 2017	Filing 168 OMNIBUS RULING RE PENDING MOTIONS IN THIS AND RELATED CASE: For the reasons stated in the attached ruling, the cross-motions for summary judgment in both cases are DENIED. No. 13-cv-1470, Docs. #85, #94; No. 13-cv-1471, Docs. # 129 ; # 137 . The moti ons to exclude the expert testimony of Dr. Elizabeth Howlett (No. 13-cv-1470, Docs. #84 & #113; No. 13-cv-1471, Doc. # 78 ), and Colin Weir (No. 13-cv-1471, Docs. # 85 , # 86 ) are DENIED. The motion to certify the class in Case No. 13-cv-1470 (Doc. #70) is DENIED. The motion to certify the class in Case No. 13-cv-1471 (Docs. # 66 , # 67 ) is GRANTED. A class will be certified with the following definition: All purchasers of the Aveeno Baby Brand Wash and Shampoo until November of 2012 and Aveen o Baby Brand Calming Comfort Bath baby wash until November of 2013, beginning on the following dates in the following states: in Alaska from January 25, 2011 in California, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Colombia, Illinois, New York and Wisco nsin from January 25, 2010; in Florida, Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Washington from January 25, 2009; in Arkansas and Missouri from January 25, 2008; in Michigan, New Jersey, and Vermont from January 25, 2007; in Rhode Island from January 25, 2003; an d in any additional states which the Court determines to have sufficiently similar law to Connecticut without creating manageability issues, who purchased the Products primarily for personal, family or household purposes. Specifically excluded from t his Class are: the Defendant, the officers, directors and employees of Defendant; any entity in which Defendant has a controlling interest; any affiliate, legal representative of Defendant; the judge to whom this case is assigned and any member of the judge's immediate family; and any heirs, assigns and successors of any of the above persons or organizations in their capacity as such. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 3/13/2017. (Townsend, D.)

Date Filed

Document Text

March 13, 2017

Filing 168 OMNIBUS RULING RE PENDING MOTIONS IN THIS AND RELATED CASE: For the reasons stated in the attached ruling, the cross-motions for summary judgment in both cases are DENIED. No. 13-cv-1470, Docs. #85, #94; No. 13-cv-1471, Docs. # 129 ; # 137 . The moti ons to exclude the expert testimony of Dr. Elizabeth Howlett (No. 13-cv-1470, Docs. #84 & #113; No. 13-cv-1471, Doc. # 78 ), and Colin Weir (No. 13-cv-1471, Docs. # 85 , # 86 ) are DENIED. The motion to certify the class in Case No. 13-cv-1470 (Doc. #70) is DENIED. The motion to certify the class in Case No. 13-cv-1471 (Docs. # 66 , # 67 ) is GRANTED. A class will be certified with the following definition: All purchasers of the Aveeno Baby Brand Wash and Shampoo until November of 2012 and Aveen o Baby Brand Calming Comfort Bath baby wash until November of 2013, beginning on the following dates in the following states: in Alaska from January 25, 2011 in California, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Colombia, Illinois, New York and Wisco nsin from January 25, 2010; in Florida, Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Washington from January 25, 2009; in Arkansas and Missouri from January 25, 2008; in Michigan, New Jersey, and Vermont from January 25, 2007; in Rhode Island from January 25, 2003; an d in any additional states which the Court determines to have sufficiently similar law to Connecticut without creating manageability issues, who purchased the Products primarily for personal, family or household purposes. Specifically excluded from t his Class are: the Defendant, the officers, directors and employees of Defendant; any entity in which Defendant has a controlling interest; any affiliate, legal representative of Defendant; the judge to whom this case is assigned and any member of the judge's immediate family; and any heirs, assigns and successors of any of the above persons or organizations in their capacity as such. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 3/13/2017. (Townsend, D.)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Langan v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Heidi Langan
Represented By:	Mark P. Kindall
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?