Law Center Search Results

On December 20, 2024, the NAM filed an amicus brief requesting the U.S. Supreme Court to address whether the admissibility of expert testimony should be considered at the class certification stage of a case. In this case,pPetitioners Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. and Nutramax Laboratories Veterinary Sciences, Inc. (collectively, “Nutramax”) research, develop, and sell supplements for household pets. Respondents—two individuals who purchased a Nurtamax product for their elderly dogs—brought a putative class action asserting damages claims against Nutramax. Respondents allege that various statements used on different versions of product labels were deceptive. The Central District of California granted Respondents’ motion for class certification and denied Nutramax’s motion to exclude Respondents’ expert testimony. The district court held that “[a]t the class certification state, admissibility must not be dispositive. Instead, an inquiry into the evidence’s ultimate admissibility should go to the weight that evidence is given.” In a split decision, the 9th Circuit affirmed. Nutramax filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.

We argued in our amicus brief that Federal Rule of Evidence 702 requires the admissibility of expert testimony to be considered at the class certification stage. The U.S. Supreme Court should grant certiorari because circuit courts are split on this issue. Moreover, this issue is important because class certification carries huge stakes: the multiplying effect of certification creates a risk of “devastating loss” that in turn leads to “in terrorem” class settlements even for “questionable claims.”