Algarin v. Maybelline, LLC
300 F.R.D. 444
S.D. Cal.2014Background
- Plaintiffs allege Maybelline deceptively labeled and advertised its SuperStay 24HR Lipcolor and Makeup with 24-hour/no-transfer claims.
- Plaintiffs purchased Lipcolor for $10 and Makeup for $12 in reliance on those claims and allege they would have paid less otherwise.
- Maybelline offers a Refund Program; consumers can seek refunds if dissatisfied, with hundreds of complaints prior to 2013.
- Plaintiffs filed a consolidated SAC alleging UCL and CLRA violations seeking injunctive relief and damages; Defendant moved for class certification.
- Court preliminarily identified concerns about definitional scope, ascertainability, commonality, and manageability, and ultimately denied certification.
- Court concluded the class definition is ascertainable but unmanageable and that common questions do not predominate; no certification under Rule 23(a) or 23(b)(2) or 23(b)(3).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 23 requirements are met for class certification | Algarin argues a single class is viable for both products | Maybelline contends the class is overbroad and unmanageable due to differences between products and injury | Not met; certification denied |
| Whether UCL/CLRA claims can be certified for class treatment | Plaintiffs allege common misrepresentations injure class members | Expert and evidence show individualized reliance/materiality; claims not common | Not met; not certifiable on UCL/CLRA theory |
| Ascertainability and administrability of the proposed class | Class membership can be determined by purchase of Lipcolor or Makeup | Self-identification is unreliable; many uninjured or refunded purchasers complicate ascertainment | Ascertainable but not administratively feasible; unmanageable |
| Do common questions predominate under Rule 23(b)(3) or support 23(b)(2) relief | Common misrepresentations and remedies apply class-wide | Materiality, reliance, and injury vary; damages require individualized inquiry | Predominance not shown; 23(b)(3) not satisfied; 23(b)(2) not appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012) (rigorous analysis required for Rule 23; needs prerequisites satisfied)
- In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (Cal. 2009) (private UCL actions require likelihood of deception by reasonable consumer)
- Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. Supreme Court 2011) (commonality and common questions; no need for identical claims)
- Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) (permissive typicality and commonality standard for class actions)
- Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal.4th 1134 (Cal. 2003) (restitutionary remedy principles in California class actions)
- Colgan v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 135 Cal.App.4th 663 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (damages and restitution must be measurable and tied to liability)