Johnson v. General Mills, Inc.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45120
C.D. Cal.2011Background
- Johnson asserts UCL and CLRA claims on behalf of California YoPlus purchasers alleging packaging and marketing misrepresent YoPlus as digestive-health promoting.
- Plaintiff seeks class certification for nationwide California class of YoPlus purchasers from initial California sale to notice date.
- Court evaluates class certification under Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3), bearing burden to show common questions predominate and class is superior.
- UCL and CLRA standing found for Johnson based on injury-in-fact and alleged reliance in purchase.
- Court concludes common issues predominate (misrepresentation, materiality, reliance nor individualized proof required) and class treatment superior.
- Johnson is appointed as class representative, with Blood Hurst & O’Rear-don, LLP and Robbins Gellar Rudman & Dowd, LLP as class counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 23(a) requirements satisfied? | Johnson satisfies numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy. | General Mills challenges some elements as needing individualized proof. | Yes, Rule 23(a) satisfied. |
| Rule 23(b)(3) predominance met? | Common misrepresentation issues predominate over individual issues. | Potential individualized deception proof could overwhelm common questions. | Yes, predominance satisfied. |
| Classwide reliance under UCL/CLRA? | UCL allows classwide relief; CLRA permits common reliance in class actions. | Prop. 64 requires reliance for named plaintiff but not for unnamed class members. | Classwide reliance and materiality allowed for certification. |
| Superiority of class action? | Fewer costs and higher efficiency favor class treatment for consumer claims. | Possible duplicative proceedings elsewhere; management concerns. | Yes, class action is superior. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 603 F.3d 571 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc; class certification standard and discretion)
- In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (Cal. 2009) (standing and reliance; material misrepresentation emphasis)
- Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) (permissive standard for typicality; commonality framing)
- Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (S. Ct. 1997) (predominance and class certification framework)
- In re Steroid Hormone Prod. Cases, 181 Cal.App.4th 145 (Cal. App. 2010) (claims under CLRA/UCL; classwide considerations)
- McAdams v. Monier, Inc., 182 Cal.App.4th 174 (Cal. App. 2010) (classwide reliance concept in California)
- Wiener v. Dannon Co., 255 F.R.D. 658 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (common issues in consumer fraud packaging claims)
- Fitzpatrick v. General Mills, Inc., 263 F.R.D. 687 (S.D. Fla. 2010) (digestive-health benefit as a common marketing theme)