Forcellati v. Hyland's, Inc.
876 F. Supp. 2d 1155
C.D. Cal.2012Background
- Plaintiff Enzo Forcellati, a New Jersey resident, sues Hyland’s, Inc., Standard Homeopathic Laboratories, Inc., and Standard Homeopathic Company for multiple consumer-protection and warranty claims.
- Plaintiff alleges Hyland’s Cold and Flu Remedies are marketed as fast-acting, safe, and multi-symptom relief but are actually highly diluted with no active ingredients.
- Plaintiff seeks relief on a nationwide class and New Jersey subclass for certain claims; some claims are for New Jersey subclass only and others for nationwide class.
- Defendants move to dismiss arguing standing, choice-of-law, breadth of class, failure of warranty claims, and non-qualifying Magnuson-Moss Act product type.
- Court applies Twombly/Iqbal defense standard, requires fraud-based claims to meet Rule 9(b) specificity, and addresses class certification timing and choice-of-law considerations.
- Court ultimately denies most dismissals, except dismisses unjust enrichment claim with prejudice and defers some class issues to certification stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are nationwide class claims proper at the pleading stage? | Forcellati argues differences in state laws can be managed later; Mazza allowed broad claims at certification. | Hyland's argues Mazza precludes nationwide CA-law claims and class-wide CST due to state-law differences. | Nationwide class claims denied at pleading stage; court defers to certification stage. |
| Can Forcellati sue California-law claims as a New Jersey resident? | Forcellati asserts California law applies given defendants’ California contacts and claims arise from California-based conduct. | Hyland's contends California-law claims lack standing or proper choice-of-law applicability. | California-law claims may proceed; standing issue insufficient to dismiss California claims. |
| Does Forcellati have standing to assert claims about products he did not use? | Forcellati contends class claims may include products beyond his own purchase (typicality/adequacy considerations apply). | Hyland's asserts standing limits to products actually purchased by Forcellati. | Plaintiff’s claims regarding other Cold and Flu products survive; standing analyzed under typicality/adequacy, not strict standing. |
| Are the express and implied warranty claims viable under California law? | Forcellati contends packaging statements constitute express warranties and product is unfit for purpose, implying breach. | Hyland's argues statements are regulatory or non-actionable; product claims cannot support warranties. | Express and implied warranty claims survive; dismissed only the unjust enrichment claim. |
| Does Magnuson-Moss apply to OTC homeopathic medicines here? | Magnuson-Moss applies to consumer products; OTC meds fall within its broad definition. | Drugs regulated by FDCA are not consumer products under Magnuson-Moss. | Court DENIES dismissal of Magnuson-Moss Act claim; product may be a consumer product under Magnuson-Moss for pleading purposes. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012) (court confines choice-of-law to facts; nationwide class not determined at pleading stage)
- Weinstat v. Dentsply Int’l, Inc., 180 Cal.App.4th 1213 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (requirements for express warranty claims under California law)
- Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 99 Cal.App.4th 780 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (FDCA definitions and Magnuson-Moss implications)
- Goldsmith v. Mentor Corp., 913 F. Supp. 56 (D.N.H. 1995) (FDCA scope and consumer-product considerations under Magnuson-Moss)
- Kemp v. Pfizer, Inc., 835 F. Supp. 1015 (E.D. Mich. 1993) (FDCA exclusions and consumer-product analysis under Magnuson-Moss)
- Boelens v. Redman Homes, Inc., 748 F.2d 1058 (5th Cir. 1984) (Magnuson-Moss scope and consumer-product definitions)