96 F. Supp. 3d 1063
S.D. Cal.2015Background
- Defendant Similasan Corp. manufactures and sells homeopathic OTC products (six products at issue) with labels asserting effectiveness and other claims (e.g., "Eye Doctor Recommended," "Preservative Free," "100% Natural").
- Plaintiffs Rideout and Hairston bought various Similasan products and allege they were ineffective and deceptively labeled; original plaintiff Allen filed a putative class action and was later replaced/added by Rideout and Hairston in an amended complaint.
- Remaining causes of action: CLRA, UCL, FAL, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and MMWA claims.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment; Plaintiffs moved to strike that motion and submitted an expert (Dr. Noel R. Rose) to rebut Defendant’s expert on efficacy.
- District court: denied Plaintiffs’ motion to strike Defendant’s summary judgment motion; held Rideout’s claims largely relate back to the original complaint but dismissed some of Rideout’s claims as time‑barred; denied motion to strike Dr. Rose; dismissed injunctive relief; granted summary judgment on immaterial label claims; otherwise denied summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to strike Defendant’s summary judgment motion as premature | Plaintiffs argued merits discovery had not opened so motion was premature | Scheduling order allowed merits discovery and did not bar early summary judgment | Denied — summary judgment motion not stricken |
| Relation‑back / statute of limitations | Rideout and Hairston’s claims relate back to original complaint; thus timely | Claims do not relate back and are time‑barred | Claims relate back to original complaint; Rideout’s claims accruing before 2/10/2008 (UCL, MMWA, warranties) and before 2/10/2009 (CLRA, FAL) dismissed; Hairston’s claims timely |
| Expert admissibility (Dr. Rose) | Dr. Rose’s literature‑based opinion shows Similasan products unlikely to be effective; admissible to rebut defendant’s expert | Defendant argued Rose opined generally about homeopathy, not specifics of defendant’s products, so inadmissible under Rule 702/Daubert | Denied — Dr. Rose’s report is relevant and reliable and need not test each product specifically |
| Standing / reliance & injunctive relief | Plaintiffs contend reliance not required for UCL; plead intent to repurchase if products were effective | Defendant argued lack of reliance on specific label statements and no real threat of future injury for injunctive relief | Court: reliance not required for UCL; immaterial ancillary label claims ("Eye Doctor Recommended," "Preservative Free," "100% Natural") dismissed for lack of causation; injunctive relief dismissed for lack of real/immediate threat |
| Warranty & MMWA claims | Plaintiffs assert breach of implied warranty under Song‑Beverly and related MMWA claim | Defendant argued lack of vertical privity, labels not written warranties, and implied warranty elements unmet | Court: Song‑Beverly plausibly pled so vertical privity not required; MMWA claim survives as derivative of state warranty claims; denied summary judgment on these claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (genuine dispute and evidence‑viewing standard at summary judgment)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (expert admissibility standard)
- In re Syntex Corp. Sec. Litig., 95 F.3d 922 (relation‑back analysis under Rule 15)
- Immigrant Assistance Project of L.A. Cnty. Fed’n of Labor v. I.N.S., 306 F.3d 842 (relation‑back/application to adding plaintiffs)
- Aryeh v. Canon Bus. Solutions, 55 Cal.4th 1185 (continuous accrual doctrine)