Tyler v. Liz Claiborne, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that rule applies where parties and claims in both class actions are “identical or substantially similar”
• holding plaintiffs plausibly alleged defendants’ claims of health benefits of dietary supplement were false or deceptive where the “plaintiffs cite[d] to numerous scientific studies that arguably supported] their conclusion” that the supplement could not work as advertised
• dismissing the plaintiffs' breach of warranty claims concerning supplement labels for failure to allege notice
• declining to stay in part because, regardless of disposition of a pending motion in the prior filed case, additional issues would still require a decision
• considering and dismissing the argument that “plaintiffs’ claims merely amount to a nonactionable ‘lack of substantiation’ claim” under New York Gen. Bus. L. § 349
• dismissing warranty claim for failure to allege timely notice of breach under New York’s notice statute, which is similar to Vermont’s

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).