15 U.S.C. § 2072

Suits for damages

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Persons injured; costs; amount in controversy

Any person who shall sustain injury by reason of any knowing (including willful) violation of a consumer product safety rule, or any other rule or order issued by the Commission may sue any person who knowingly (including willfully) violated any such rule or order in any district court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides or is found or has an agent, shall recover damages sustained and may, if the court determines it to be in the interest of justice, recover the costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys’ fees (determined in accordance with section 2060(f) of this title) and reasonable expert witnesses’ fees: Provided, That the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $10,000, exclusive of interest and cost, unless such action is brought against the United States, any agency thereof, or any officer or employee thereof in his official capacity.

(b) Denial and imposition of costs

Except when express provision is made in a statute of the United States, in any case in which the plaintiff is finally adjudged to be entitled to recover less than the sum or value of $10,000, computed without regard to any setoff or counterclaim to which the defendant may be adjudged to be entitled, and exclusive of interests and costs, the district court may deny costs to the plaintiff and, in addition, may impose costs on the plaintiff.

The remedies provided for in this section shall be in addition to and not in lieu of any other remedies provided by common law or under Federal or State law.

(Pub. L. 92–573, § 23, Oct. 27, 1972, 86 Stat. 1226; Pub. L. 94–284, § 10(c), May 11, 1976, 90 Stat. 507; Pub. L. 96–486, § 3, Dec. 1, 1980, 94 Stat. 2369; Pub. L. 97–35, title XII, § 1211(h)(3)(B), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 723.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1981—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 97–35 substituted “section 2060(f) of this title” for “section 2059(e)(4) of this title”.

1980—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 96–486, § 3(a), struck out provision subjecting actions under this section to section 1331 of title 28 as to the amount in controversy and inserted proviso establishing minimum amount in controversy and excepting actions brought against the United States, or agencies, officers, or employees thereof.

Subsecs. (b), (c). Pub. L. 96–486, § 3(b), added subsec. (b) and redesignated former subsec. (b) as (c).

1976—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 94–284 substituted “shall” for “and shall” and provision permitting the court to award costs in the interest of justice for a prior provision which permitted the court to award costs in its discretion.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1981 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 97–35 effective Aug. 13, 1981, see section 1215 of Pub. L. 97–35, set out as a note under section 2052 of this title.

Effective Date of 1980 Amendment; Applicability

For effective date and applicability of amendment by Pub. L. 96–486, see section 4 of Pub. L. 96–486, set out as an Effective Date of 1980 Amendment note under section 1331 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

Effective Date

Section effective on the sixtieth day following Oct. 27, 1972, see section 34 of Pub. L. 92–573, set out as a note under section 2051 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 73 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1974–2025 · leading case: Kehr Ex Rel. Kehr v. Yamaha Motor Corp., USA, 596 F. Supp. 2d 821 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Kehr Ex Rel. Kehr v. Yamaha Motor Corp., USA, 596 F. Supp. 2d 821 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). · cites it 3× “) Plaintiffs claim that they are entitled to damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 2072 . (Id. ¶ 110.) Yamaha moves to dismiss this cause of action, arguing that there is no private right of action for the failure to comply with reporting requirements of the CPSA.”

Butcher v. Robertshaw Controls Co., 550 F. Supp. 692 (D. Maryland 1981). · cites it 7× “Plaintiffs’ federal claim is premised on 15 U.S.C. § 2072 , which provides: (a) Any person who shall sustain injury by reason of any knowing (including willful) violation of a consumer product safety rule, or any other rule or order issued by the Commission may sue any person…”

Wilson Ex Rel. Lincoln Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. Robertshaw Controls Co., 600 F. Supp. 671 (N.D. Ind. 1985). · cites it 9× “As a basis for this motion, defendant contends that no private right of action is created for an alleged violation of the non-binding interpretive rules of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) under 15 U.S.C. § 2072 (a). For the reasons set forth below, defendant’s…”

Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1 (1985). · cites it 2× “1226 , as amended, 15 U. S. C. §§ 2072 (a), 2073 ("costs of suit, including reasonable attorney's fees").”

Swenson v. Emerson Elec. Co., 374 N.W.2d 690 (Minn. 1985). · cites it 5× “Does Section 23 of the Consumer Products Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2072 , provide a private right of action for violation of the non-binding interpretive regulation issued by the Consumer Products Safety Commission at 16 CFR Part 1115? 2.”

Young v. Robertshaw Controls Co., 560 F. Supp. 288 (N.D.N.Y. 1983). · cites it 4× “I This action is brought pursuant to § 23 of the Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2072 , 1 to recover for the personal injuries and subsequent death of plaintiff’s decedent.”

Vicki Lynn Drake v. Honeywell, Inc. v. Wagoner Water Heater Co., Inc., 797 F.2d 603 (8th Cir. 1986). · cites it 2× “The question presented is whether section 23(a) of the Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2072 (a) (1982), creates a private cause of action for an injury resulting from noncompliance with the product hazard reporting rules issued by the Consumer Product Safety Commission.”

Wahba v. H & N Prescription Ctr., Inc., 539 F. Supp. 352 (E.D.N.Y 1982). · cites it 3× “The complaint pleads ten causes of action, four under federal law, pursuant to section 23 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (Act), 15 U.S.C. § 2072 (1976 & Supp. III 1980), and six pendent under state common law.”

Sara Lee Corp. v. Homasote Co., 719 F. Supp. 417 (D. Maryland 1989). · cites it 3× “Plaintiffs claim that 15 U.S.C. § 2072 (a) affords them a private right of *425 action for violation of the reporting rules in 16 C.”

Payne v. A.O. Smith Corp., 578 F. Supp. 733 (S.D. Ohio 1983). · cites it 3× “# 162) to file an amended complaint, which sought to (a) correct two minor errors in the original complaint, (b) increase the amount of damages prayed for, and (c) add a fifth cause of action, under the federal Consumer Products Safety Act (CPSA), 15 U.S.C. § 2072 . Defendants…”

Baas v. Hoye, 766 F.2d 1190 (8th Cir. 1985). · cites it 13× “§ 1473 (b); and (3) the Baases failed to prove a knowing violation of a consumer product safety rule as required for recovery under 15 U.S.C. § 2072 . Hoye and Young also appeal from the jury’s award of punitive damages against them, claiming that the federal statute, 15 U.”

Nazareth Gates v. John Collier, Superintendent of the Mississippi State Penitentiary, 616 F.2d 1268 (5th Cir. 1980). “1977); Consumer Product Safety Act §§ 23, 24, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2072 , 2073 (Supp. V 1975), as amended by Consumer Product Safety Commission Improvements Act of 1976, Pub.”

Show all 73 citing cases →

— 15 U.S.C. § 2072(a) — 2 cases

In Re Mattel, Inc., 588 F. Supp. 2d 1111 (C.D. Cal. 2008).

Delaware Citizens for Clean Air, Inc. v. Stauffer Chem. Co., 62 F.R.D. 353 (D. Del. 1974).

— 15 U.S.C. § 2072(c) — 1 case

Billy Wayne Frith v. BIC Corp. (Miss. 2000).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.