A personal injury action has been filed on behalf of named and unnamed retired football players from around the nation in a California state court against the National Football League and companies that make football helmets, seeking compensation for concussion-related injuries. Barnes v. Nat’l Football League, No. BC468483 (Cal. Super. Ct., filed August 26, 2011). The former players allege that the league failed to warn them of the risks of long-term injury from concussions and failed to protect them with league-mandated equipment. They also allege design and manufacturing defect, failure to warn and negligence against the manufacturers. One named plaintiff is a widow who alleges wrongful death as to all defendants. The plaintiffs request compensatory, special and punitive damages, as well as costs.

A South Carolina resident has filed a putative class action in federal court against the company that makes a child safety seat that allegedly does not conform to applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards despite being advertised as such. Robinson v. Graco Children’s Prods., Inc., No. 11-02379 (U.S. Dist. Ct., D.S.C., filed September 6, 20110). Seeking to represent a statewide class of purchasers claiming monetary loss, the plaintiff alleges breach of express warranties and fraudulent concealment. She requests compensatory damages and attorney’s fees.  

A California resident, seeking to represent a nationwide class of consumers, has filed suit against a Florida company that makes and sells a beverage that is supposed to function as a sleep aid, but is purportedly ineffective. Ferris v. Dream Prods., LLC, No. 37-2011-00097625 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego County, filed September 8, 2011). The product, Dream Water®, is apparently sold in airports, over the Internet and in national retail chains. According to the complaint, it is promoted as a “miraculous water” that “works for anyone who needs to relax, fall asleep or stay asleep” and, “[a]lthough Defendant uses images and language to represent that these claims about its products have been clinically proven and endorsed by medical organizations and professionals, the reality is that Defendant has no such support for its baseless representations.” The product purportedly contains melatonin, which the plaintiff contends, can have negative health effects.  

Alleging violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act and California Business & Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq. and 17500 et seq., and breach of express and implied warranty, the plaintiff seeks class certification, damages, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief, punitive damages, a corrective advertising campaign, attorney’s fees, interest, and costs.