Fitzpatrick v. General Mills, Inc.
635 F.3d 1279
| 11th Cir. | 2011Background
- YoPlus was marketed nationwide as providing digestive health benefits due to probiotics, inulin, and vitamins A and D.
- Fitzpatrick sued General Mills and Yoplait USA under FDUTPA and for breach of express warranty based on YoPlus claims.
- The district court certified a FDUTPA class under Rule 23(b)(3) defined as all Florida YoPlus purchasers seeking the digestive health benefit.
- The court held common questions predominated for FDUTPA and that a class action was the superior method for the controversy, but denied class certification for the breach of warranty claim.
- The district court defined the certified class as all persons who purchased YoPlus in Florida to obtain its claimed digestive health benefit, which the Eleventh Circuit found inconsistent with its prior analysis and vacated for reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Predominance under Rule 23(b)(3) for FDUTPA | Fitzpatrick argues common issues predominate due to the uniform deception impact. | General Mills contends individualized issues predominate over common ones. | Predominance acknowledged, but class definition flawed so remand advised. |
| Proper class definition for FDUTPA certification | Class should encompass all Florida YoPlus purchasers, not those who bought for the health benefit. | A narrower, reliance-based definition is appropriate. | Reversed as to class definition; remand to redefine the class. |
| Reliance requirement under FDUTPA | Actual reliance need not be shown; deception to a reasonable consumer suffices. | Reliance may be relevant depending on framing of the class. | FDUTPA liability does not require proof of actual reliance; objective deception suffices. |
| Consistency between district court's analysis and class definition | No conflict; the analysis supports a broad class. | There is a mismatch between analysis and the class definition. | Vacate due to definitional conflict; remand for coherent formulation. |
| Remand direction | N/A | N/A | Case remanded to allow district court to redefine the class consistent with analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Klay v. Humana, Inc., 382 F.3d 1241 (11th Cir. 2004) (predominance standard for Rule 23(b)(3))
- Davis v. Powertel, Inc., 776 So.2d 971 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (no need to prove actual reliance for deceptive trade practices)
- Commerce Commercial Leasing, LLC v. State, 946 So.2d 1253 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (deceptive/unfair trade practices—no strict reliance showing required)
- Heffner v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ala., Inc., 443 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir. 2006) (standard of review for abuse of discretion in class certification)