In Re Clorox Consumer Litigation

Filing 126

ORDER requesting additional briefing.Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on July 3, 2014. (sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/3/2014)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

9

IN RE CLOROX CONSUMER
LITIGATION

10
11
This Document Relates To:
12
ALL ACTIONS
13
14

) Master File No. 12-00280 SC
)
) ORDER REQUESTING SUPPLEMENTAL
) BRIEIFING
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

15
16

Now before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion to certify five

17

plaintiff sub-classes.

18

defined by the state in which its members purchased Clorox Fresh

19

Step cat litter -- either California, Texas, New York, Florida, or

20

New Jersey.

21

Step's effectiveness relative to other cat litter brands, thereby

22

inducing Plaintiffs to purchase Fresh Step at a higher price.

23

their initial complaint, Plaintiffs brought claims under California

24

law only.

25

complaint twice.

26

state Plaintiffs' contention that all five sub-classes should be

27

certified under California law.

28

("TAC") ¶ 74.

ECF No. 99 ("Mot.").

Each sub-class is

Plaintiffs allege that Clorox misrepresented Fresh

ECF No. 1.

In

Plaintiffs have since amended their

Both the second and third amended complaints

ECF Nos. 29 ("SAC") ¶ 68; 93

In the event that the Court were to conclude that

1

California law does not apply to all five sub-classes, the second

2

and third amended complaints include alternative claims under the

3

laws of Florida, Texas, New York, and New Jersey.

4

TAC ¶¶ 102-62.

5

Court were to find that California law does not apply to all

6

claims, the sub-classes should be certified under the laws of their

7

respective states.

8
9

SAC ¶¶ 96-156;

Both amended complaints also argue in that, if the

SAC ¶ 69; TAC ¶ 75.

Plaintiffs' motion to certify refers only to the sub-classes.
It requests certification for each sub-class under the law of its

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

respective state.

11

complaint, which reasserts Plaintiffs' argument that all claims

12

should be governed by California law, was filed after the motion to

13

certify was submitted under seal.

14

in their reply that they are entitled to a presumption that every

15

member of the proposed classes relied on Clorox's alleged

16

misrepresentations.

17

grounded in California law.

18

There is no discussion of whether or why such a presumption should

19

apply to the sub-classes from other states if California law does

20

not apply.

21

Mot. at 1, 7-14.

However, the third amended

Additionally, Plaintiffs argue

That presumption, according to Plaintiffs, is
ECF No. 115-4 ("Reply") at 9-10.

The Court hereby requests additional briefing on these issues.

22

Plaintiffs shall file a single supplemental brief on this matter,

23

not to exceed ten (10) pages, no later than fourteen (14) days

24

after the signature date of this Order, that

25

(1) specifies whether or not Plaintiffs contend that

26

California law governs the claims of members of all five

27

proposed sub-classes;

28

(2) explains the legal basis for that position; and

2

1

(3) discusses application of the class-wide presumption of

2

reliance under the laws of New York, New Jersey, Texas, and

3

Florida (either primarily if Plaintiffs seek certification

4

under the law of each state or in the alternative if they seek

5

certification under California law).

6

Clorox may file a single supplemental brief, also not to exceed ten

7

(10) pages, no later than fourteen (14) days after Plaintiffs'

8

supplemental brief is filed.

9

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12
13

Dated:

July 3, 2014
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3