Lilly v. Jamba Juice Co.
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131997
N.D. Cal.2014Background
- Plaintiffs Lilly and Cox sued Jamba Juice and Inventure Foods alleging the front‑label statement “All Natural” on five frozen smoothie kit SKUs is false because the products contain ingredients like ascorbic acid, xanthan gum, steviol glycosides, modified corn starch, and gelatin.
- Plaintiffs brought claims under the CLRA, FAL, UCL, and for breach of warranty; the Court previously denied defendants’ motion to dismiss and found CAFA jurisdiction proper.
- Plaintiffs moved to certify a California consumer class of purchasers of the five smoothie kits; defendants opposed on ascertainability, typicality, predominance, and damages grounds.
- The court analyzed Rule 23(a) requirements (numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy), the (b)(3) predominance/superiority inquiry, and the (disputed) requirement of class ascertainability.
- The court found the class ascertainable, typical, adequate, numerous, and that common issues predominate as to liability, but concluded plaintiffs had not shown damages can be calculated classwide under Comcast.
- The court therefore certified the class only for purposes of determining liability under Rule 23(c)(4), appointed class representatives and counsel, and set a case management conference.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ascertainability of class membership | Class is defined by objective criteria (purchasers of five SKUs in California); plaintiffs provided a notice/identification plan including retailer records and media notice. | Class cannot be ascertained because purchasers lack receipts and defendants/retailers lack buyer lists; following Carrera, certification should be denied where members cannot be identified. | Court: class is sufficiently ascertainable; notice plan and practicable methods satisfy due process and manageability at this stage. |
| Typicality & adequacy | Named plaintiffs bought the challenged products and their claims align with the class; counsel able to represent class. | Defendants point to plaintiffs’ consumption of similar ingredients and certain deposition answers to argue atypicality/unique defenses. | Court: Plaintiffs are typical and adequate; defenses noted do not defeat typicality or adequacy. |
| Commonality & predominance (meaning of “All Natural”) | Single common question exists (whether “All Natural” is misleading) and reasonable‑consumer/materiality standards allow classwide proof. | Term “All Natural” lacks fixed regulatory definition and may be understood differently by consumers, defeating common proof. | Court: Commonality satisfied; the “All Natural” representation here is a single common issue across five products and supports classwide liability adjudication. |
| Damages feasibility (Comcast issue) | Plaintiffs propose full refund, disgorgement of profits, or allocation to challenged ingredients; damages can be addressed later or via bifurcation. | Plaintiffs produced no evidentiary damages model; Comcast requires a classwide damages method tied to liability theory. | Court: Plaintiffs failed to show damages can be feasibly and efficiently calculated classwide; but this does not bar certification for liability only. Court certifies class for liability under Rule 23(c)(4) and reserves damages for individual determination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (rigorous Rule 23(a) analysis and commonality standard)
- Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (U.S. 2013) (class certification requires a damages model consistent with liability theory)
- Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (U.S. 1997) (Rule 23 requirements and considerations for class certification and settlement)
- Leyva v. Medline Indus., 716 F.3d 510 (9th Cir. 2013) (damages calculations alone do not defeat certification; feasibility can be satisfied by an available database)
- Jimenez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 765 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2014) (affirming certification principles post‑Comcast and permitting liability‑only class with damages reserved)
- Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2008) (reasonable consumer standard for food labeling claims)