In re Amla Litig.
282 F. Supp. 3d 751
S.D. Ill.2017Background
- Plaintiffs sued L'Oreal and Soft Sheen-Carson over Amla Legend Rejuvenating Ritual Relaxer, alleging the product causes hair and scalp injury while packaging misled consumers about safety ("No-Lye", "Amla Oil", "Scalp Protector", "rejuvenating nourishment").
- Plaintiffs moved to certify multiple classes: a Nationwide Class (fraud, negligent misrepresentation), a 25-state Multistate Class (express warranty), a New York Class and Florida Class (unjust enrichment; NY also seeks statutory damages under NY GBL § 349), a Rule 23(b)(2) request for injunction/declaratory relief for NY and FL, and a 23(c)(4) Non‑Economic Injury issue class.
- Defendants opposed certification, arguing individual issues (reliance, state-law differences, causation, misapplication of product) predominate and that class treatment is unmanageable.
- The Court found Rule 23(a) prerequisites satisfied (numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, ascertainability) but analyzed Rule 23(b) requirements state-by-state and claim-by-claim.
- Rulings: the Court denied certification of the Nationwide, Multistate, and Non‑Economic Injury classes, but granted certification of the New York and Florida classes under Rule 23(b)(3) for unjust enrichment (and NY GBL § 349 statutory damages) and under Rule 23(b)(2) for injunctive and declaratory relief; named class reps and class counsel were appointed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a nationwide fraud class (fraud by misrepresentation/omission) can be certified under Rule 23(b)(3) | Misrepresentations/omissions on uniform packaging misled all purchasers; expert says product is so dangerous that any reasonable consumer would not buy it if informed, allowing classwide proof of reliance | Individual reliance differs (many bought for price/brand/taste); state laws vary on omission‑based fraud and duties to disclose, making classwide adjudication unmanageable | Denied — individualized reliance issues and state‑law splits predominate |
| Whether a nationwide negligent misrepresentation class can be certified | Same uniform statements support classwide negligent misrepresentation claims | State laws vary widely (some states don't recognize the tort; economic‑loss rule and duty differences vary), creating unmanageable conflicts | Denied — state law differences and individual issues predominate |
| Whether a 25‑state Multistate express‑warranty class is certifiable | Warranty statements on packaging are common and breach can be proved with common evidence | Many states require proof of reliance or treat reliance differently; some infer reliance but others require affirmative proof, making management and predominance problematic | Denied — reliance and state‑law variance predominate |
| Whether New York and Florida classes may be certified for unjust enrichment (and NY GBL § 349) and for injunctive/declaratory relief under Rule 23(b)(2) | Common packaging and uniform business conduct make unjust enrichment and statutory consumer‑protection claims amenable to classwide proof; monetary relief limited to refunds (23(b)(3)) while injunctions/declarations sought under 23(b)(2) | Defendants point to individual proof of purchase, variation in benefit, and standing for injunctive relief | Granted — common issues predominate; class action is superior; plaintiffs have Article III standing; 23(b)(2) appropriate for injunction/declaration alongside 23(b)(3) damages class |
| Whether an issue class under Rule 23(c)(4) to decide product defect/negligence (non‑economic injury) is appropriate | A liability determination on defect/negligence for five states would streamline later individual causation/damages proceedings | Individualized defenses (comparative/contributory negligence, misapplication of product) will overlap liability and later juries would need to relitigate core issues, risking inefficiency and Seventh Amendment problems | Denied — overlap of individual causation/negligence and risk of duplicative jury determinations undercuts manageability and efficiency |
Key Cases Cited
- Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds, 568 U.S. 455 (class predominance does not require every element be susceptible to classwide proof)
- McLaughlin v. American Tobacco Co., 522 F.3d 215 (2d Cir. 2008) (individualized reliance defeats class certification for fraud where purchasers buy for varied reasons)
- Moore v. PaineWebber, Inc., 306 F.3d 1247 (2d Cir. 2002) (uniform misrepresentations can support class certification when reliance can be shown by generalized proof)
- In re U.S. Foodservice Inc. Pricing Litig., 729 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2013) (common proof can establish reliance in some fraud classes; need to assess manageability across differing laws)
- Marisol A. v. Giuliani, 126 F.3d 372 (2d Cir. 1997) (commonality satisfied where injuries derive from a unitary course of conduct)
- Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322 (preclusion and offensive collateral estoppel principles affect subsequent litigation)
- Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (class certification limits under Rule 23(b)(2) when individualized monetary awards are primary relief)
- In re Petrobras Sec. Litig., 862 F.3d 250 (2d Cir. 2017) (ascertainability requires objective class definitions)