Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Class Action Blogs -> CAFA Law Blog - Information, cases and insights regarding the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005

Class Action

: CAFA Law Blog - Information, cases and insights regarding the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005

Little Case for Some Red Hot CAFA Lipstick.

Stella v. LVMH Perfumes and Cosmetics ISA, Inc., --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2008 WL 2669662 (N.D.Ill., Jul 08, 2008)(NO. 07 C 6509).

Tell me, who does not like to see red hot lipstick? Well, this plaintiff does not because she asserted that it was toxic.

In this case, the plaintiff’s claims arose out of her purchase of Christian Dior’s “Addict Positive Red” lipstick which allegedly contained dangerous levels of lead. She sought relief under various theories, including breach of implied warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA).   The defendant filed a motion to dismiss arguing, among other things, that the plaintiff could not satisfy the MMWA’s jurisdictional requirements. 

In response, the plaintiff argued that CAFA created an alternative basis for federal jurisdiction over the MMWA claim. That argument was not opposed, and the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois agreed.  So, today's practice pointer is if you cannot satisfy the MMWA's jurisdictional requirements, you might try CAFA.

Full post as published by CAFA Law Blog - Information, cases and insights regarding the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 on October 16, 2008 (boomark / email).