“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case?
Several California consumers challenged misrepresentations about use of animal testing by a company selling hair care products
What happened in this case?
Randall Heagney and several other California consumers filed a class action against John Paul Mitchell Systems (JPMS), contending that the company falsely claimed that it did not conduct animal testing on cosmetic products. A district court certified the case as a class action, and JPMS sought to appeal that holding in the Ninth Circuit.
In October, Trump judge Daniel Bress and Clinton judge Ronald Gould issued a 2-1 ruling that decertified the class as JPMS requested in Heagney v JPMS. George W Bush judge Jay Bybee dissented. The majority maintained that the plaintiffs had “failed to provide sufficient evidence” that “damages could be measured on a classwide basis.”
Why did Judge Bybee dissent?
Based on a careful review of the record, Judge Bybee, known as a conservative judge, concluded that the plaintiffs’ expert had made “sufficient” showings to “demonstrate damages’ susceptibility to classwide treatment.” This was consistent with past precedent, he explained, and would have preserved JPMS’ ability to raise the damages issue at a later stage of the case.
Why is this decision harmful?
The decision made possible by Trump judge Bress obviously harmed Randall Heagney and his fellow plaintiffs, precluding them from seeking class-wide relief for the damaging misrepresentations they claim were committed by JPMS. It also sets a bad precedent concerning certification of class actions, particularly in the Ninth Circuit, which includes California, Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. In addition, the decision illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.