“Can you create this Frankenstein’s monster of different laws?” Rosenthal asked. “I do not think you can do it.”
When Judge Orrick asked whether the alleged conflicts related only to damages and not liability, Rosenthal acknowledged that liability was not in dispute under the same framework.
Plaintiffs Say Differences Among State Laws Don’t Undermine Class
Elana Katcher of Kaplan Fox Kilsheimer LLP, arguing for the plaintiffs, countered that minor variations among state antitrust statutes shouldn’t derail certification. She argued that California’s Cartwright Act could govern all claims because the alleged conspiracy was rooted in California — Juul’s home state and a major market for its products.
“The court’s challenge is to ensure that modest variances in the laws of other states do not stand in the way of plaintiffs’ ability to pursue their antitrust case,” Katcher said.
She noted that requiring 31 separate class representatives would make the case too fragmented and costly to prosecute, frustrating the purpose of class actions.
