Lorean Barrera v. Pharmavite LLC

Filing 274

MINUTES OF Motion Hearing held before Judge Christina A. Snyder RE: Plaintiff's Motion for Approval of Class Notice and Plan for Dissemination of Class Notice 212 . The Court concludes that, in light of defendant's currently pending motio ns, it is prudent to defer ruling on plaintiff's motion for approval of a class notice and plan for dissemination of that notice. While the Court expresses no opinion on the merits of the pending motions, it notes that were the Court to authoriz e a class notice and then subsequently decertify or modify the existing classes, the parties would need to disseminate a second class notice. Thus, were the Court to approve plaintiff's class notice at this time it could potentially cause confus ion for members of the classes and plaintiff may incur needless expense by issuing not one, but two class notices. Accordingly, the Court DEFERS RULING on and hereby takes the instant motion under submission. Plaintiff may renew her motion after the Court has resolved the pending motions to decertify the classes in this case and for summary judgment. Court Reporter: Laura Elias. (gk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:11-cv-04153-CAS(AGRx)

Title

‘O’

LOREAN BARRERA V. PHARMAVITE, LLC

Present: The Honorable

Date

April 4, 2016

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

Catherine Jeang
Deputy Clerk

Laura Elias
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Elaine Ryan
Patricia Syverson
Stewart Weltman

Rene Tatro

Proceedings:

I.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CLASS NOTICE
AND PLAN FOR DISSEMINATION OF CLASS NOTICE (Filed
03/02/2016)[212]

INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

On May 13, 2011, plaintiff Lorean Barrera, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, filed the instant class-action suit against defendant Pharmavite, LLC.
(“Pharmavite”). The instant suit arises out of the marketing and sales of Pharmavite’s
“Triple Flex” dietary supplements. On November 19, 2014, the Court granted in part
plaintiff’s motion for class certification. Dkt. 192. Specifically, the Court certified two
classes of California consumers who purchased Pharmavite’s “Triple Flex”
products––one class bringing claims under the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) and the
other bringing claims under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”). Id.
On March 2, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for an order approving plaintiff’s
proposed forms of class notice and plans for dissemination of that class notice. Dkt. 212.
On March 14, 2016, defendant filed an opposition, Dkt. 218, and on March 21, 2016,
plaintiff filed a reply, Dkt. 228. Plaintiff’s motion is presently before the Court.
II.

DISCUSSION

Defendant does not substantively contest the adequacy of plaintiff’s proposed
forms of class notice and plans for dissemination of that notice. Instead, the thrust of
defendant’s opposition is that the Court should delay ruling on plaintiff’s motion until
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:11-cv-04153-CAS(AGRx)

Date

Title

‘O’

April 4, 2016

LOREAN BARRERA V. PHARMAVITE, LLC

after the Court has ruled on several recently filed dispositive motions in this case.
Specifically, defendant contends that the Court should withhold ruling on the instant
motion until after the Court has resolved defendant’s motions for summary judgment and
to decertify the classes in this case.
The Court concludes that, in light of defendant’s currently pending motions, it is
prudent to defer ruling on plaintiff’s motion for approval of a class notice and plan for
dissemination of that notice. While the Court expresses no opinion on the merits of the
pending motions, it notes that were the Court to authorize a class notice and then
subsequently decertify or modify the existing classes, the parties would need to
disseminate a second class notice. Thus, were the Court to approve plaintiff’s class
notice at this time it could potentially cause confusion for members of the classes and
plaintiff may incur needless expense by issuing not one, but two class notices.
Accordingly, the Court DEFERS RULING on and hereby takes the instant motion under
submission. Plaintiff may renew her motion after the Court has resolved the pending
motions to decertify the classes in this case and for summary judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED
00
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

15

CMJ

Page 2 of 2