A Utah court has declined to consolidate five individually filed Paparazzi class-actions.
The court found that while “common factual questions” between the cases exist;
The legal questions and applicable substantive law also differ among the five cases. And consolidation is unnecessary for judicial economy or to address the parties’ desire to coordinate discovery and to avoid a potential for inconsistent rulings.
The court decided that, for the purpose of judicial economy, transferring the five cases to Utah was sufficient.
Transferring the cases filed in the District of Utah to a single district judge will achieve these considerations and will avoid the drawbacks and unworkable aspects of the convoluted consolidation the parties propose.
For reference, the five Paparazzi class-actions currently in play in Utah are:
- the Hollins Complaint (originally filed in New York);
- the Johnson Complaint (originally filed in North Carolina);
- the Teske Complaint (filed in Utah);
- the Burgess Complaint (originally filed in California); and
- the Gilbert Complaint (originally filed in Michigan)
All of the proposed class-actions pertain to, as the Utah court put it, “Paparazzi’s representations and the chemical makeup of Paparazzi’s products.”
This is a polite way of saying Paparazzi stands accused of selling jewelry containing dangerous levels of toxic metals.
Unfortunately, despite evidence clearly pointing to tainted jewelry being sold to consumers, US authorities have yet to take any action.
Stay tuned for updates as we continue to track the five Paparazzi class-action suits.