4:18-cv-02248
N.D. Cal.Feb 28, 2019Background
- Nine plaintiffs brought a consolidated putative class action alleging Rodan & Fields’ Lash Boost eye serum contains isopropyl closprostenate (ICP), a prostaglandin analog, and that Rodan failed to disclose serious ICP-related side effects.
- Plaintiffs each used and purchased Lash Boost and reported various ocular injuries allegedly consistent with prostaglandin analog effects (e.g., eye color change, retinopathy, lash loss, eyelid discoloration, rash).
- Plaintiffs allege product packaging and marketing contained only minimal warnings (irritation/swelling) and actively distinguished Lash Boost as a cosmetic, omitting material adverse effects tied to ICP.
- Plaintiffs assert omission-based claims under multiple states’ false advertising and common-law consumer-protection statutes, plus a RICO claim.
- District court applied Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 9(b) standards for fraud-by-omission, evaluated materiality, reliance, injury, and whether plaintiffs adequately pled a RICO enterprise.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Omission-based false advertising / consumer-protection claims | Rodan omitted material safety information about ICP; omission was material and plaintiffs relied on packaging and marketing | Omissions insufficiently pleaded; plaintiffs cannot show reliance/materiality or injury | Denied: court found plaintiffs plausibly alleged omission, materiality, reliance, and injury for causes 1–19 |
| Adequacy of fraud pleading under Rule 9(b) | Plaintiffs sufficiently identified omitted fact and why it is true; reliance can be inferred in omission cases | Defendant argued plaintiffs failed to plead who/what/when/where/how with particularity | Denied: court held Rule 9(b) satisfied given omission context and allegations |
| State-law scope (multi-state claims) | Allegations sufficed to state claims under CA, FL, IL, NY, MA, WA statutes and common law | Defendant contended differences in state laws defeat claims | Denied: court concluded allegations plausibly state claims across the referenced states |
| RICO (existence of enterprise) | Plaintiffs alleged an enterprise composed of Rodan and its independent consultants who sold product | Rodan argued consultants were unwitting, ordinary business relationships, so no RICO enterprise | Granted: RICO claim dismissed with prejudice for failure to plead an enterprise |
Key Cases Cited
- Ileto v. Glock, 349 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir.) (Rule 12(b)(6) standard)
- Somers v. Apple, 729 F.3d 953 (9th Cir.) (pleading requirements under Rule 8)
- United States ex rel. Cafasso v. General Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir.) (Rule 9(b) specificity: who, what, when, where, how)
- Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 873 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir.) (economic injury for false-advertising claims)
- Eclectic Properties E., LLC v. Marcus & Millichap Co., 751 F.3d 990 (9th Cir.) (RICO enterprise elements)