Allen v. Hyland's Inc.
300 F.R.D. 643
C.D. Cal.2014Background
- Plaintiffs move for class certification on claims arising from twelve Hyland’s/Standard Homeopathic products sold nationwide since Feb 9, 2008.
- Products are marketed as natural, safe, and effective but allegedly contain highly diluted active ingredients; FDA has not endorsed efficacy of homeopathic drugs.
- Plaintiffs allege misrepresentations on packaging (e.g., “100% Natural”) and seek damages under CLRA, UCL, FAL, express/implied warranties, and MMWA, plus state law claims in Florida and Georgia.
- Plaintiffs propose a nationwide class (and California/Florida/Georgia subclasses) with defined exclusions including Defendants and governmental entities.
- Court conducts Rule 23 analysis, addressing issues of ascertainability, choice of law, predominance, typicality, adequacy, and damages, granting in part and denying in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Choice of law for class | California has significant contacts; applies CA law under governmental interest test. | Mazza requires applying foreign state law for consumer protections where class members reside. | California law applies to the class. |
| Ascertainability of the class | Class defined by purchases of twelve labeled products with misrepresentations; ascertainable from records. | Low-cost products and self-identification raise ascertainability concerns. | Class sufficiently ascertainable. |
| Rule 23(a) adequacy, commonality, typicality | Common theory of dilution/false advertising applies to all products; named plaintiffs adequately represent class. | Product-specific issues and some named plaintiffs' reliance differ; some products lack typicality. | Commonality satisfied; typicality unmet for ClearAc and Poison Ivy/Oak Tablets; adequacy satisfied for named plaintiffs and counsel. |
| Predominance and substantial common questions | Common questions about homeopathic dilution and misrepresentation predominate over individual issues; damages tied to liability theory. | Efficacy varies by product; reliance and product-specific defenses undermine predominance. | Predominance satisfied for UCL/FAL/CLRA/express warranty/MMWA claims; damages model feasible; remaining device-specific issues addressed at merits. |
| Damages and superiority | Restitution of purchase price is appropriate; damages can be calculated from sales data; class treatment superior for small individual claims. | Individualized damages and potential offsets may defeat class treatment. | Damages model approved; class action superior for adjudicating restitution. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012) (governmental interest test in choice of law for class actions)
- Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC, 617 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2010) (predominance requires common issues to be central and cohesive)
- In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (Cal. 2009) (standing for UCL claims requires reliance or materiality)
- Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 704 F.3d 712 (9th Cir. 2012) (standing for class-wide fraud-based UCL claims requires actual reliance by at least one named plaintiff)
- Leyva v. Medline Indus. Inc., 716 F.3d 510 (9th Cir. 2013) (damages need not be uniform for class actions; individualized inquiries occur but not fatal to certification)