Ries v. Arizona Beverages USA LLC
287 F.R.D. 523
N.D. Cal.2012Background
- Putative California consumer class challenges Arizona Iced Tea labeling calling products 'All Natural' despite HFCS or citric acid.
- Plaintiffs allege misrepresentation on labeling, advertising, and on defendants’ website; six claims under UCL, FAL, and CLRA.
- Named plaintiffs Ries and Algozer testify to purchases and reliance on labels; some purchases are undocumented or years old.
- Defendants move for summary judgment on all claims; plaintiffs cross-move for class certification (definition includes California purchasers from 2006 forward).
- Court grants in part and denies in part summary judgment; grants class certification as modified, limiting to injunctive/declaratory relief under Rule 23(b)(2).
- Court addresses standing, restitution/monetary recovery limitations, and statute-of-limitations issues for certain claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to pursue monetary relief | Ries/Algozer suffered injury in fact and reliance; receipts not required. | No precise receipts or prices; damages uncertain. | Statutory standing shown; restitution issues survive but require more evidence for exact amounts; CLRA/FAL dismissed for statute of limitations for Ries. |
| Injunctive/declaratory relief class certification under Rule 23(b)(2) | Class-wide relief appropriate; common misrepresentation affects all class members. | Individual issues and damages predominate; not suitable for (b)(2). | Certified for injunctive/declaratory relief only; monetary relief not certified under (b)(2). |
| Article III standing for injunctive relief by unnamed class members | Past misrepresentations create ongoing risk; named plaintiffs have intent to purchase again. | No imminent threat of repetition by class members. | Named plaintiffs’ standing established; injunctive relief available on class basis. |
| Statute of limitations on CLRA and FAL claims | Discover rule should toll claims; discovery in 2009-2010 could relate back. | Injury occurred at purchase in 2006; discovery rule not applicable here. | Ries’s CLRA and FAL claims barred; summary judgment in defendants’ favor on those claims; UCL claims may remain. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (Cal. Sup. Ct. 2009) (reliance framework under UCL requires 'immediate cause' of injury)
- Colgan v. Google Inc., 135 Cal.App.4th 694 (Cal. App. 4th 2006) (restitution standards under UCL/FAL; need not be exact accounting)
- Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal.4th 1134 (Cal. 2003) (restitution framework and measure of damages under UCL)
- Vioxx, Inc. v. Superior Court, 180 Cal.App.4th 116 (Cal. App. 4th 2009) (measure of restitution; value difference principle)
- Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 603 F.3d 571 (9th Cir. 2010) (commonality under Rule 23(b)(2); class must be capable of common resolution)
- Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497 (9th Cir. 1992) (typicality and adequacy in Rule 23(a) analysis)