TRIAL BY SAMPLE: A POST-GAME, LOCKER ROOM CHAT EXPLORING THE MCADAMS V. MONIER TRIAL: A ROUNDTABLE With Trial Counsel Jeffrey Cereghino and William Stern
Moderated by Kimberly Kralowec; Edited by Asim Bhansali
The case of McAdams v. Monier went to trial in 2012 as one of the few class action cases under either the Unfair Competition Law or Consumers Legal Remedies Act to reach trial in the past few years. Following an eight-week trial, the jury found for plaintiffs, but returned a damages verdict of $7.4 million rather than the $250 million that the plaintiff sought. The trial court subsequently entered judgment for the defendant despite the verdict, finding the methodology used by plaintiff’s expert to be speculative.
This judgment came after a decade of litigation. Following an original filing in 2003, the case reached the Court of Appeal on certification issues. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision not to certify the class, but the defendant appealed to the California Supreme Court. Following its decision in Tobacco II, the California Supreme Court remanded this case to the Court of Appeal to review in view of that decision. The Court of Appeal again decided that class certification was appropriate, and a trial followed.
What follows is a roundtable discussion among trial counsel for plaintiff, Jeffrey Cereghino of Ram, Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski, and trial counsel for the defendant, William Stern, of Morrison & Foerster. This written roundtable forum has been edited by Asim Bhansali of Keker & Van Nest LLP. The original roundtable was presented at the 2013 Golden State Institute and moderated by Kimberly Kralowec of The Kralowec Law Group.