Miller v. Peter Thomas Roth, LLC, 3:19-cv-00698

Background

Plaintiffs Kari Miller and Samantha Paulson purchased PTR Labs skincare products (Water Drench and Rose Stem Cell) after seeing advertising claims about hyaluronic acid hydration and "bio repair" effects.
Plaintiffs allege the advertisements are false or misleading in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.).
Plaintiffs moved to certify four classes: for each product line, a Rule 23(b)(2) class seeking injunctive/declaratory relief and a Rule 23(c)(4) class on liability to support later monetary claims.
Defendants moved for summary judgment soon after the class-certification motion; defendants also agreed to waive certain protections against one-way intervention for purposes of the plan.
The court concluded plaintiffs can obtain a statewide injunction and liability finding under § 17200 without certifying a class, and restitution would require a class only if plaintiffs later pursue it after prevailing individually.
Holding: the motion for class certification is denied as moot without prejudice because class certification is unnecessary at this stage to obtain the relief plaintiffs currently seek.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether class certification is required for plaintiffs to obtain injunctive and declaratory relief under the UCL	Class certification is appropriate to pursue statewide relief and a liability determination binding on similarly situated consumers	Class certification is unnecessary because injunctive relief under § 17200 benefits the public and an individual plaintiff can obtain a statewide injunction without a class	Plaintiffs may obtain liability and a statewide injunction without class certification; certification denied as moot without prejudice
Whether restitution or other monetary relief requires class certification now	Plaintiffs limited current request to injunctive relief and liability, acknowledging restitution raises individualized issues and need not be certified now	Defendants argue delay in class certification risks one-way intervention but chose to move for early summary judgment and waived certain protections	Court agreed restitution requires a class only if sought later; present certification unnecessary; potential one-way intervention concerns diminished by defendant's conduct and waiver
Whether the court should address class claims now or defer until after merits	Plaintiffs sought class rulings now to facilitate binding relief for others	Defendants advocated immediate adjudication and moved for summary judgment, accepting risk of post-judgment class actions	Court declined to certify and held the case can proceed on individual claims; class issues may be revisited if plaintiffs later seek restitution

Key Cases Cited

McGill v. CitiBank, N.A., 393 P.3d 85 (Cal. 2017) (after Proposition 64, representative restitution claims must be brought as class actions)
Fireside Bank v. Superior Ct., 155 P.3d 268 (Cal. 2007) (discusses prejudice from delaying class certification and risk of one-way intervention)
Schwarzchild v. Tse, 69 F.3d 293 (9th Cir. 1995) (one-way intervention is not categorically prohibited; defendants who move early assume certain risks)