These two cases, involving class certification of claims related to mold growth in front-load washers, were distributed for consideration during the U.S. Supreme Court's conference of last Friday, January 10, 2013 2014. (Oops, still trying to get used to the fact that it is now the year 2014. And by the way, where's my flying car, my jetpak, and my robot maid?)
The dockets were both updated Monday morning to show that the cases have been relisted and redistributed for conference on Friday, January 17, 2013 2014. Whirlpool Corp. v. Glaser, No. 13-431 (U.S.); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Butler, No. 13-430 (U.S.).
For more details on these cases, including links to the lower court opinions and some of the briefs, see this blog post.
In other news, the Court granted cert. in a case I've been following because the underlying action includes a UCL claim. POM Wonderful LLC v. The Coca Cola Co., No. 12-761 (U.S.). Before cert. was granted last Friday, the matter had been relisted once, and the Solicitor General was invited to file an amicus curiae brief, which it did in late November.
Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that a private party cannot bring a Lanham Act claim challenging a product label regulated under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
The Ninth Circuit's opinion is Pom Wonderful LLC v. The Coca-Cola Co., 679 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2012), discussed in this blog post. The UCL claim was allowed to proceed, but the Lanham Act claim was not. The cert. petition does not appear to have challenged the former ruling. Indeed, a footnote in the solicitor general's amicus brief states as follows:
Petitioner also brought claims under various California laws. Those claims are not at issue in this Court. See pet. 1. The district court granted summary judgment to respondent on those claims, No. 08-CV-6237, 2013 WL 543361 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2013), and petitioner's appeal is pending, No. 13-5570 (9th Cir).
Amicus Curiae Brief of United States at 5 n.2. In the cited decision, the district court held that the UCL claim was preempted by federal law.
SCOTUSblog's case page for this matter has links to more of the briefs.