Astiana v. Kashi Co.
291 F.R.D. 493
S.D. Cal.2013Background
- Plaintiffs brought a consumer class action alleging Kashi mislabeled products as "Nothing Artificial" or "All Natural" despite containing certain synthetic or processed ingredients; claims asserted under California UCL, FAL, CLRA, breach of express warranty, and quasi‑contract.
- Plaintiffs proposed nationwide classes (or multi‑state/statewide alternatives) for purchases on or after August 24, 2007; defendant opposed certification.
- Named plaintiffs testified they purchased Kashi products at least in part because of the challenged representations and would have paid less or bought other products if not so labeled.
- Court applied Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) standards (commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, superiority) and performed the required rigorous analysis overlapping merits where appropriate.
- Court granted certification in part: certified California "Nothing Artificial" class and a narrower California "All Natural" class limited to products containing pyridoxine hydrochloride, calcium pantothenate, and/or hexane‑processed soy ingredients; denied nationwide and broader "All Natural" class certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ascertainability / Numerosity | Class members can be defined as purchasers of labeled products; millions of sales make joinder impracticable | Identification difficulties because defendant lacks consumer purchase records; potential lack of proof of purchase | Class definitions sufficiently definite and numerosity satisfied; administrative difficulties do not bar certification |
| Commonality / Typicality ("Nothing Artificial") | Single common contention: "Nothing Artificial" means no artificial/synthetic ingredients; common advertising and exposure make issues classwide | Product differences and diverse consumer motivations defeat common questions | Commonality and typicality satisfied for a California "Nothing Artificial" class; common questions predominate |
| Predominance & Reliance (UCL/FAL/CLRA) | Materiality of the "Nothing Artificial" claim permits an inference of reliance and classwide proof of causation/injury | Individualized reliance and injury issues preclude class treatment | For "Nothing Artificial" class common issues predominate; materiality inference supports classwide reliance |
| Scope of "All Natural" Class | Plaintiffs seek broad class for many products with varied ingredients | "All Natural" lacks uniform definition; many challenged ingredients permitted in organic foods; consumer perceptions vary, defeating commonality and predominance | Broader "All Natural" class denied; narrower California class certified only for products containing pyridoxine hydrochloride, calcium pantothenate, and/or hexane‑processed soy ingredients |
| Damages Manageability | Plaintiffs can calculate restitution using defendant sales/profit/price records | Individualized damages calculations defeat predominance | Method for computing restitution plausible at certification stage; damages issues do not defeat certification |
| Choice of Law / Nationwide Class | California law can govern class claims nationwide | Mazza and choice‑of‑law principles bar applying California law to non‑California transactions | Nationwide class denied; certification limited to California classes under choice‑of‑law analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (commonality requires a common contention capable of class‑wide resolution)
- Gen. Tel. Co. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (U.S. 1982) (district court must conduct rigorous Rule 23 analysis and may consider merits where overlapping)
- Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co., 666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012) (California law generally may not be applied classwide to nationwide consumer claims without choice‑of‑law analysis)
- Stearns v. Ticketmaster Corp., 655 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2011) (standing and class‑wide reliance under UCL/FAL/CLRA; materiality inference)
- In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (Cal. 2009) (material misrepresentations permit inference of reliance for UCL/FAL/CLRA and point‑of‑purchase injury)
- Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) (commonality and typicality standards for consumer class certification)