Morrison Foerster is an international law firm with lawyers practicing throughout the United States, Asia, and Europe. Click to discover more.

mofo_share_image.jpg

Morrison Foerster

favicon.ico

favicon-16x16.png

favicon-32x32.png

apple-touch-icon.png

MoFo Favicons

Terms / Notices

Cookies

Privacy Policy

Attorney Advertising

Secure Login

Alumni

  Facebook

MoFo Facebook

  Linkedin

MoFo LinkedIN

Twitter

MoFo Twitter

YouTube

MoFo Youtube

Morrison Foerster - Footer

You have not solved the recaptcha challenge yet or session expired, try again.

Disclaimer

Unsolicited e-mails and information sent to Morrison & Foerster will not be considered confidential, may be disclosed to others pursuant to our <a href="https://www.mofo.com/about/privacy-policy.html">Privacy Policy</a>, may not receive a response, and do not create an attorney-client relationship with Morrison & Foerster. If you are not already a client of Morrison & Foerster, do not include any confidential information in this message. Also, please note that our attorneys do not seek to practice law in any jurisdiction in which they are not properly authorized to do so.

Feedback

mofo-logo-2022.svg

People

Capabilities

Resources

About

Culture

Offices

Careers

Stay Connected

James Sigel and Adam Sorensen authored an article for the Daily Journal discussing the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ recent decision in McGee v. S-L Snacks National, the latest in a line of 9th Circuit opinions clarifying Article III’s standing requirements in consumer-products litigation.

Ruling Offers Insights on Consumer Injuries and Standing

About Morrison Forester

people-default-header-desktop.jpg

people-default-header-mobile.jpg

Default Meta Data

James Sigel and Adam Sorensen authored an article for the Daily Journal discussing the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ recent decision in McGee v. S-L Snacks National, the latest in a line of 9th Circuit opinions clarifying Article III’s standing requirements in consumer-products litigation.“The decision illustrates an interesting strategic issue,” the authors wrote. “One might think the defendant here got lucky: Diamond [Foods] conceded standing, but the court saved Diamond from itself. Yet the procedural history suggests the story might be more complex: Diamond conceded [plaintiff Jacqueline McGee’s] standing in a Rule 28(j) letter filed shortly before argument – when it had just learned the identity of the panel members. Diamond could have conceivably viewed the composition of the panel as favorable to the plaintiff on this question, and then decided to preserve credibility, and shift the court’s focus, by conceding standing and pressing their alternative arguments. Critically, the downsides of that concession were lower than they might normally be, given the court’s obligation to address McGee’s Article III standing regardless of what Diamond said. While this strategy would undoubtedly be a risky one, Diamond’s ultimate victory here suggests there might be some circumstances in which it could pay off – or at the very least cause no harm.”Read the <a target="_blank" href="http:https://media2.mofo.com/v3/assets/blt5775cc69c999c255/blt1ac2755e7de3fe9a/6273ee7c5f7b601eaaebea83/210108-ruling-offers-insights.pdf">full article</a>.