Bruno v. Quten Research Institute, LLC
280 F.R.D. 524
C.D. Cal.2011Background
- Plaintiff Kelley Bruno filed January 31, 2011 alleging misrepresentations on Qunol liquid product: "6X Better Absorption" and "6 Times More Effective."
- Defendants Quten Research Institute LLC (Quten) and Tishcon Corp. (Tishcon) are the marketing and manufacturing entities for Qunol; Chopra reviews health statements for Quten before labeling.
- Liquid product carried 6X representations; BBB NAD concluded the study did not support the 6x claim and Defendants ceased the representations in April 2010.
- Since 2007, Defendants marketed a gelcap product with representations of 3X absorption; the labels also include related graphics and slogans.
- Plaintiff seeks class certification under California UCL, FAL, CLRA, and breach of express warranty for purchasers of Qunol with misrepresentations post-January 31, 2007.
- Court grants class certification in part: certifies a class for the 6X representation but excludes those exposed only to the 3X representation; California law governs a nationwide class, with choice-of-law analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 23(a) sufficiency for 6X class | Bruno contends numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy are met for the 6X class. | Quten contends issues are too individualized, particularly for those exposed to 3X. | Rule 23(a) satisfied for 6X class; 3X exposure excluded. |
| Standing vs Rule 23 for unnamed members | Class certification should proceed under Rule 23; standing concerns apply only to named plaintiff. | Unnamed class members must have Article III standing; widespread injury analysis required. | Court adopts Rule 23 analysis; standing issues resolved by representative, not unnamed members. |
| Predominance under Rule 23(b)(3) | Common questions about material misrepresentation are central and damages method uniform. | Individualized reliance and injury may vary among class members. | Predominance satisfied for 6X class; common questions predominate; 3X group excluded. |
| Choice of law for nationwide class | California law should apply to nationwide class due to significant California contacts. | Other jurisdictions’ laws may apply; conflicts may arise. | California law applied to nationwide class; defendant failed to show material conflicts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stearns v. Ticketmaster Corp., 655 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2011) (standing focus on named plaintiffs; class certification may proceed under Rule 23)
- In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (Cal. 2009) (objective test for deception; no need for individualized reliance)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (rigorous analysis for class certification; overlap with merits)
- Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797 (U.S. 1985) (due process in applying state law to nationwide class actions)