Johnson v. General Mills, Inc.
276 F.R.D. 519
C.D. Cal.2011Background
- Mr. Johnson asserts California UCL and CLRA claims on behalf of a proposed class alleging Defendants misrepresented YoPlus digestive health benefits.
- Plaintiffs argue YoPlus packaging and marketing, including ads, conveyed a material misrepresentation about digestive health benefits.
- This Court granted class certification on April 20, 2011, finding common issues predominated under Rule 23.
- After Wal-Mart v. Dukes (2011), Defendants moved for class decertification raising commonality/predominance concerns.
- Ninth Circuit’s Steams v. Ticketmaster addressed class certification under UCL/CLRA principles, prompting further briefing.
- The Court denies Defendants’ motion for class decertification, reaffirming predominance and commonality despite individualized damages analyses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Commonality after Wal-Mart/Ticketmaster | Johnson shows a common misrepresentation core shared by all class members. | Wal-Mart/Ticketmaster undermine commonality due to individualized issues in damages and reliance. | Commonality satisfied; certification preserved. |
| Reliance and causation can be inferred for CLRA/UCL | Inference of reliance allowed for CLRA; material misrepresentation possible to infer causation. | Inference should be limited; individual issues predominate. | Inference of reliance permitted for CLRA; does not defeat certification. |
| Impact of individualized damages on predominance | Damages are individualized but do not defeat class treatment where common liability exists. | Individual damages threaten predominance. | Damages alone do not defeat predominance; Rule 23(b)(3) satisfied. |
| Due process concerns under Wal-Mart | Trial-by-formula damages is permissible post-liability for class actions with predominance. | Wal-Mart requires individualized defenses to avoid due process issues. | Due process concerns resolved; damages-phase procedures permissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (limits class certification under 23(b)(2) where common issues do not predominate)
- In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (Cal. 2009) (requires public deception showing; material misrepresentation suffices for UCL/CLRA without individualized proof)
- Ticketmaster U.S.A., Inc. v. Steams, 655 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2011) (permits classwide inference of reliance for CLRA claim)
- In re Vioxx Class Cases, 180 Cal.App.4th 116 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (materiality standard for class-wide inference)
- Blackie v. Barrack, 524 F.2d 891 (9th Cir. 1975) (damages are invariably an individual question and do not defeat class treatment)
- Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) (commonality and common core of salient facts permissible with disparate remedies)
- Poulos v. Caesars World, Inc., 379 F.3d 654 (9th Cir. 2004) (classwide inference discussions for reliance)
- Steroid Hormone Prod. Cases, 181 Cal.App.4th 145 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (materiality standard for consumer misrepresentation)
- In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (Cal. 2009) (reaffirmed reliance inferred when misrepresentation to entire class exists)