Prescott v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC
Filing
143
ORDER GRANTING 111 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION (public redacted version of sealed order filed at 138 ). Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 7/14/2022. (blflc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/29/2022)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
SAN JOSE DIVISION
7
8
STEVEN ROBERT PRESCOTT, et al.,
9
Plaintiffs,
v.
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Case No. 20-cv-02101-BLF
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR CLASS
CERTIFICATION
RECKITT BENCKISER LLC,
Defendant.
12
[Re: ECF 111]
13
14
Plaintiffs bring this putative class action against Defendant Reckitt Benckiser LLC
15
16
(“Reckitt”) on behalf of consumers who purchased Woolite laundry detergent labeled with the
17
phrases “COLOR RENEW” and/or “revives colors” (collectively, “the color renew/revive
18
representation”). Plaintiffs assert that the color renew/revive representation was false or
19
misleading, because Woolite laundry detergent does not renew or revive color in clothing. They
20
assert consumer claims on behalf of the residents of three states, California, New York, and
21
Massachusetts.
Plaintiffs move for certification of a California class, a New York class, and a
22
23
Massachusetts class of consumers. Reckitt opposes certification. The motion is GRANTED for
24
the reasons discussed below.
25
I.
BACKGROUND
26
In 2017, Reckitt launched a new marketing campaign for its Woolite brand laundry
27
detergents. See Kafka Decl. ¶ 3 and Exh. 1; Exh. 7, Fuentes Dep. 33:18-24. Reckitt changed the
28
formula of its Woolite Gentle Cycle detergent and Woolite Darks detergent, and it began
1
marketing those products by representing that the reformulated detergent would “renew” and
2
“revive” color in clothing. See Kafka Decl. ¶ 3 and Exh. 1; Exh. 7, Fuentes Dep. 33:18-24. On
3
100% of those detergent bottles, the back label displayed the phrase “revives colors” as part of a
4
prominent graphic showing that the reformulated detergent “smooths rough fibers” and “removes
5
pilling and fuzz” with the end result that it “revives colors.” See Henry Exh. 14, Tyrell Decl. ¶¶ 5-
6
10. On approximately 57% of the bottles, the back label also displayed the phrase “HOW
7
COLOR RENEW WORKS” inside a rainbow-colored hexagon. See id. Finally, on
8
approximately 55% of the bottles, the front label displayed the phrase “COLOR RENEW” inside a
9
rainbow-colored hexagon. See id.
In conjunction with the new marketing campaign, Reckitt implemented a
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
% increase in
11
its wholesale prices for all sizes of Woolite Gentle Cycle detergent and Woolite Darks detergent,
12
with the exception of the
13
Dep. 90:23-91:3. Although it did not increase the wholesale price for the
14
cancelled a previously-planned decrease in the wholesale price for those bottles. See Kafka Exh.
15
20, Pinsonneault Report ¶¶ 60-61.
See Kafka Decl. Exh. 3, Tedesco
Reckitt
A competitor in the detergent market, Procter & Gamble, initiated a challenge to Reckitt’s
16
17
advertising with the National Advertising Division (“NAD”) of the Council of Better Business
18
Bureaus.1 See Kafka Exh. 37, Procter & Gamble’s Challenge. Among other things, Procter &
19
Gamble asserted that Reckitt’s claim that Woolite detergent “revives color” is misleading because
20
Woolite detergent does not add color back to fabrics. See Kafka Exh. 37, Procter & Gamble’s
21
Challenge at 14. In August 2019, the NAD issued a decision recommending that Reckitt
22
discontinue its claim that Woolite detergent “revives color.” See Kafka Exh. 41, NAD
23
Recommendation at 16. Reckitt voluntarily agreed to discontinue the “revives color” claim. See
24
id. Reckitt stopped distributing Woolite bottles with the allegedly misleading labels in April 2021.
25
See Kafka Decl. Exh. 2.
26
27
28
“The Council isn’t a binding arbitral body, an administrative agency, or a judicial tribunal.
Rather, it’s a private organization that offers a voluntary, alternative setting for resolving
‘advertising disputes between competitors.’” NeoCell Corp. v. BioCell Tech., LLC, No. SACV
16-02173 AG (JCGx), 2017 WL 10605266, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2017).
2
1
1
Plaintiff Steven Robert Prescott, a California resident, filed this putative class action in
2
March 2020 on behalf of a California class of consumers. See Compl., ECF 1. He filed a first
3
amended complaint (“FAC”) in May 2020. See FAC, ECF 24. The Court granted in part and
4
denied in part Reckitt’s motion to dismiss the FAC, without leave to amend. See Order, ECF 70.
5
The Court thereafter granted Prescott’s unopposed motion for leave to file a second amended
6
complaint (“SAC”) adding additional named plaintiffs from California, New York, Massachusetts,
7
and Washington, and additional state law claims. See Order, ECF 90; SAC, ECF 91. Pursuant to
8
stipulation, the only named plaintiff from Washington and the only claim under Washington state
9
law were voluntarily dismissed on July 19, 2021. See Stip., ECF 98.
The operative SAC now contains the following claims, asserted by named plaintiffs Steven
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
11
Robert Prescott, Donovan Marshall, Maria Christine Anello, Darlene Kittredge, Treahanna
12
Clemmons, and Susan Elizabeth Graciale, on behalf of the residents of California, New York, and
13
Massachusetts: (1) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §
14
17200 et seq.; (2) violation of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750
15
et seq.; (3) Quasi-Contract Claim for Restitution under California Law; (4) violation of New York
16
General Business Law § 349 et seq.; (5) violation of New York General Business Law § 350 et
17
seq.; (6) [dismissed]; and (7) violation of Massachusetts General Law Chapter 93A.
18
Plaintiffs seek certification of three classes:
19
California Class: All residents of California who purchased Woolite laundry
detergent with a label bearing the phrases “Color Renew” and/or “revives colors”
from February 1, 2017 to the present.
20
21
New York Class: All residents of New York who purchased Woolite laundry
detergent with a label bearing the phrases “Color Renew” and/or “revives colors”
from February 22, 2018 to the present.
22
23
Massachusetts Class: All residents of Massachusetts who purchased Woolite
laundry detergent with a label bearing the phrases “Color Renew” and/or “revives
colors” from February 22, 2017 to the present.
24
25
26
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 governs class certification. “The party seeking class
27
certification has the burden of affirmatively demonstrating that the class meets the requirements of
28
[Rule] 23.” Stromberg v. Qualcomm Inc., 14 F.4th 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation
3
1
marks and citation omitted). “As a threshold matter, a class must first meet the four requirements
2
of Rule 23(a): (1) numerosity, (2) commonality, (3) typicality, and (4) adequacy of
3
representation.” Id.
“In addition to Rule 23(a)’s requirements, the class must meet the requirements of at least
United States District Court
Northern District of California
4
5
one of the three different types of classes set forth in Rule 23(b).” Stromberg, 14 F.4th at 1066
6
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Olean Wholesale Grocery Coop., Inc. v.
7
Bumble Bee Foods LLC, 31 F.4th 651, 664 (9th Cir. 2022). “To qualify for the third category,
8
Rule 23(b)(3), the district court must find that ‘the questions of law or fact common to class
9
members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class
10
action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the
11
controversy.’” Olean, 31 F.4th at 664 (quoting Rule 23(b)(3)).
“Before it can certify a class, a district court must be satisfied, after a rigorous analysis,
12
13
that the prerequisites of both Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) have been satisfied.” Olean, 31 F.4th at 664
14
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[P]laintiffs must prove the facts necessary to
15
carry the burden of establishing that the prerequisites of Rule 23 are satisfied by a preponderance
16
of the evidence.” Id. at 665. “In carrying the burden of proving facts necessary for certifying a
17
class under Rule 23(b)(3), plaintiffs may use any admissible evidence.” Id.
18
19
III.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs assert that that all four requirements of Rule 23(a) are satisfied in this case, and
20
that certification of a damages class is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(3). Reckitt argues that
21
Plaintiffs have not satisfied the requirements of either Rule 23(a) or Rule 23(b)(3).
22
23
24
A.
Rule 23(a) Requirements
1.
Numerosity
Rule 23(a)(1) requires that the size of the proposed class be “so numerous that joinder of
25
all the class members is impracticable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). “No exact numerical cut-off is
26
required; rather, the specific facts of each case must be considered.” Litty v. Merrill Lynch & Co.,
27
No. CV 14-0425 PA (PJWx), 2015 WL 4698475, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2015). “[N]umerosity
28
is presumed where the plaintiff class contains forty or more members.” Id.
4
1
2
sold approximately
3
“revives colors” and/or “Color Renew,” and that additional bottles bearing one or both of those
4
phrases were sold between October 1, 2020 and April 4, 2021. See Kafka Decl. ¶ 5 & Exh. 2.
5
Based on the 2020 United States Census populations of California, New York, and Massachusetts,
6
those states’ proportional shares of the Woolite products at issue are approximately
7
bottles for California, approximately
8
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Plaintiffs submit evidence that between February 1, 2017 and September 30, 2020, Reckitt
bottles of Woolite laundry detergent labeled with the phrases
bottles for New York, and approximately
bottles for Massachusetts. See Kafka Decl. ¶ 6.
9
While Reckitt does not dispute Plaintiffs’ sales figures, Reckitt argues that Plaintiffs have
10
not shown that all putative class members were exposed to the color renew/revive representation.
11
Only 55% of the subject bottles displayed the phrase “COLOR RENEW” on the front label, and
12
Reckitt asserts that Plaintiffs have not shown that purchasers of the other 45% of the bottles
13
looked at the back label. Reckitt’s argument regarding classwide exposure to the color
14
renew/revive representation is addressed below in the context of other Rule 23 requirements. For
15
purposes of the numerosity requirement, it is clear that each of the proposed classes would contain
16
thousands of members, even if the classes were limited to consumers who purchased Woolite
17
bottles bearing the phrase “COLOR RENEW” on the front label.
18
19
20
The Court finds that the numerosity requirement is satisfied.
2.
Commonality
Rule 23(a)(2) requires the plaintiff to show that “there are questions of law or fact common
21
to the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). The requirement cannot be satisfied by any common
22
question, however. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 349 (2011). “Commonality
23
requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that the class members have suffered the same injury.” Id. at
24
349-50 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The claim of common injury must depend
25
on a common contention “of such a nature that it is capable of classwide resolution – which means
26
that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each
27
one of the claims in one stroke.” Id. at 350. “[C]ommonality only requires a single significant
28
question of law or fact.” Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 666 F.3d 581, 589 (9th Cir. 2012),
5
1
overruled on other grounds by Olean Wholesale Grocery Coop., Inc. v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC,
2
31 F.4th 651 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc).2
Plaintiffs argue that all putative class members were injured by Reckitt’s false and
United States District Court
Northern District of California
3
4
misleading labeling of Woolite laundry detergent. Plaintiffs assert consumer protection claims
5
under California’s UCL and CLRA, New York’s General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, and
6
Massachusetts’ General Law Chapter 93A. Plaintiffs also asserts a quasi-contract claim for
7
restitution under California state law. As a federal court sitting in diversity over Plaintiffs’ state
8
law claims, this Court applies the substantive law of the relevant state. See Moore v. Mars
9
Petcare US, Inc., 966 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2020). Plaintiffs argue that their claims raise a
10
number of common questions, including whether the color renew/revive representation on the
11
Woolite labels is false or deceptive, and whether it is material to a reasonable consumer.
All of Plaintiffs’ statutory claims are governed by the reasonable consumer test. See
12
13
Moore, 966 F.3d at 1017 (California’s UCL and CLRA); In re Scotts EZ Seed Litig., 304 F.R.D.
14
397, 409 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (New York’s General Business Law §§ 349 and 350); Aspinall v. Philip
15
Morris Companies, Inc., 442 Mass. 381, 395-96 (2004) (Massachusetts’ General Law Chapter
16
93A). “Numerous courts have recognized that a claim concerning alleged misrepresentations on
17
packaging to which all consumers were exposed is sufficient to satisfy the commonality
18
requirement because it raises the common question of whether the packaging would mislead a
19
reasonable consumer.” Broomfield v. Craft Brew All., Inc., No. 17-CV-01027-BLF, 2018 WL
20
4952519, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2018). That commonality encompasses a quasi-contract claim
21
for restitution under California law where such claim is based on the same representation giving
22
rise to statutory labeling claims. See id. at *13. Based on these authorities, it appears that
23
Plaintiffs have identified at least two common questions – whether the color renew/revive
24
representation on Woolite detergent labels is false or deceptive, and whether it is material to a
25
reasonable consumer.
26
27
28
In Olean, the Ninth Circuit en banc “overrule[d] the statement in Mazza that ‘no class may be
certified that contains members lacking Article III standing.’” Olean, 31 F.4th at 682 n.32. The
Olean court held that statement to be inapplicable “when a court is certifying a class seeking
injunctive or other equitable relief.” Id. Other aspects of Mazza “remain good law.” Id.
6
2
1
2
they have neither demonstrated classwide exposure to the color renew/revive representation, nor
3
shown the existence of common evidence that may be used on a classwide basis to prove that the
4
representation is false or misleading. In their reply, Plaintiffs contend that they have demonstrated
5
classwide exposure to the color renew/revive representation and have presented common evidence
6
that the representation is false or misleading.
7
8
9
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Reckitt argues that Plaintiffs have not satisfied the common question requirement because
a.
Classwide Exposure
Reckitt points out that only 55% of the Woolite bottles at issue displayed the “COLOR
RENEW” language on the front label, and that 45% of the bottles displayed the “COLOR
10
RENEW” and/or “revives color” language only on the back label. Reckitt argues that “Plaintiffs
11
submitted no evidence showing that proposed class members or the reasonable consumer reviews
12
the back label before purchase, let alone paid attention to the ‘revives color’ language.” Opp. at 8.
13
Reckitt submits evidence that two of the named plaintiffs did not rely on the back label when
14
purchasing Woolite detergent. See Henry Decl. Exh. 8, Clemmons Dep. 143:19-144:11; Exh. 10,
15
Kittredge Dep. 83:2-9. One of the named plaintiffs could not remember whether he saw the back
16
label before purchasing the detergent. See Henry Decl. Exh. 11, Marshall Dep. 138:19-140:14.
17
Based on this record, Reckitt contends that exposure to the color renew/revive representation is
18
not established for purchasers of 45% of the Woolite bottles at issue.
19
“Under California law, class members in CLRA and UCL actions are not required to prove
20
their individual reliance on the allegedly misleading statements.” Bradach v. Pharmavite, LLC,
21
735 F. App’x 251, 254 (9th Cir. 2018). “Instead, the standard in actions under both the CLRA and
22
UCL is whether members of the public are likely to be deceived.” Id. (internal quotation marks
23
and citation omitted). “For this reason, courts have explained that CLRA and UCL claims are
24
ideal for class certification because they will not require the court to investigate class members’
25
individual interaction with the product.” Id. at 254-55. Claims under New York’s General
26
Business Law §§ 349 and 350 likewise do not require proof of reliance; labeling claims under
27
those statues turn on whether the label “was false, and if so, whether it was likely to mislead a
28
reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances.” In re Scotts EZ Seed Litig., 304
7
1
F.R.D. at 409. The same holds true for claims under Massachusetts’ General Law Chapter 93A.
2
See Aspinall, 442 Mass. at 397 (“Neither an individual’s smoking habits nor his or her subjective
3
motivation in purchasing Marlboro Lights bears on the issue whether the advertising was
4
deceptive.”). Consequently, Reckitt’s argument premised on Plaintiffs’ failure to show actual
5
reliance on the back label is misplaced.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
6
It is undisputed that every putative class member purchased Woolite bottles displaying the
7
phrases “COLOR RENEW” and/or “revives color.” Plaintiffs argue, and the Court agrees, that
8
these phrases are so similar that they may be viewed collectively as a single representation
9
regarding the effect of Woolite detergent on clothing. See In re First All. Mortg. Co., 471 F.3d
10
977, 992 (9th Cir. 2006) (“The class action mechanism would be impotent if a defendant could
11
escape much of his potential liability for fraud by simply altering the wording or format of his
12
misrepresentations across the class of victims.”). Reckitt does not argue to the contrary. Plaintiffs
13
have established that the color renew/revive representation appeared in one or more forms on each
14
and every bottle of Woolite detergent sold to putative class members. In general, “[w]here the
15
alleged misrepresentation appears on the label or packaging of each item being sold, class-wide
16
exposure to it may be inferred.” Zakaria v. Gerber Prod. Co., No. LA CV15–00200 JAK (Ex),
17
2016 WL 6662723, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2016); see also McCrary v. Elations Co., LLC, No.
18
EDCV 13-00242 JGB OP, 2014 WL 1779243, at *10 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2014) (“By definition,
19
class members were exposed to these labeling claims, creating a common core of salient facts.”).
20
Reckitt correctly notes that some district courts have declined to infer classwide exposure
21
where the alleged misrepresentation is not “prominently displayed on the packaging.” Hadley v.
22
Kellogg Sales Co., 324 F. Supp. 3d 1084, 1099 (N.D. Cal. 2018); see also Zakaria, 2016 WL
23
6662723, at *8. In Hadley, the district court concluded that “the ‘wholesome goodness’ phrase on
24
Nutri-Grain packaging was not sufficiently ‘prominently displayed’ to warrant an inference of
25
class-wide exposure.” Hadley, 324 F. Supp. 3d at 1099-1100. The phrase in question appeared on
26
the back panel of the Nutri-Grain packaging, in small font, and in the middle of a block of text.
27
See id. In Zakaria, the district court likewise declined to infer classwide exposure with respect to
28
language that was not “prominently displayed” on the packaging. Zakaria, 2016 WL 6662723, at
8
1
*8. The language at issue was in small font, in a block of text, and located on the back or inside
2
cover of the product package. See id. Reckitt urges this Court to follow Hadley and Zakaria in
3
adding a prominence requirement to the general rule that classwide exposure may be inferred
4
where the alleged misrepresentation appears on the label of each product sold. Reckitt argues that
5
“for about 43 percent of the
6
renews/revives color claim is ‘revives color’ in small font size on the back – by no means
7
‘prominently displayed’ – within the graphic.” Opp. at 20.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
8
units referred to in the Motion, the only reference to the
In their reply, Plaintiffs cite Krommenhock, in which the district court rejected the
9
prominence requirement articulated in Hadley and Zakaria. See Krommenhock v. Post Foods,
10
LLC, 334 F.R.D. 552, 565 (N.D. Cal. 2020). The Krommenhock court carefully reviewed the
11
reasoning of Hadley and Zakaria, the cases cited by those decisions, and other relevant authorities.
12
See id. Ultimately, the Krommenhock court concluded that California law does not support a
13
requirement that an alleged misrepresentation must be prominently displayed on the label or
14
packaging before classwide exposure may be inferred. See id. This Court agrees with
15
Krommenhock that a prominence requirement is not supported by California law. Reckitt has not
16
cited, nor has the Court discovered, any New York or Massachusetts cases imposing a prominence
17
requirement. Accordingly, the Court finds that all putative class members were exposed to the
18
color renew/revive representation, including those who purchased Woolite bottles displaying only
19
the phrase “revives color” on the back label.
20
Even if prominence were required, the Court would find that requirement met in this case.
21
The back label of all Woolite bottles at issue displayed the phrase “revives colors” as part of a
22
prominent graphic that takes up the entire upper portion of the back label. See Henry Exh. 14,
23
Tyrell Decl. ¶¶ 5-10. The present case therefore is distinguishable from Hadley and Zakaria,
24
which involved language displayed in small font and buried in a block of text.
25
In conclusion, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have established classwide exposure to the
26
color renew/revive representation, meaning that all putative class members “have suffered the
27
same injury” as required by Dukes. See Dukes, 564 U.S. at 349-50.
28
9
b.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
1
Common Evidence
2
Reckitt contends that the commonality requirement is not satisfied because Plaintiffs have
3
not shown the existence of common evidence that may be used on a classwide basis to prove that
4
the color renew/revive representation was false or misleading. “In determining whether the
5
‘common question’ prerequisite is met, a district court is limited to resolving whether the evidence
6
establishes that a common question is capable of class-wide resolution, not whether the evidence
7
in fact establishes that plaintiffs would win at trial.” Olean, 31 F.4th at 666-67. “While such an
8
analysis may entail some overlap with the merits of the plaintiff’s underlying claim, the merits
9
questions may be considered only to the extent that they are relevant to determining whether the
10
Rule 23 prerequisites for class certification are satisfied.” Id. at 667 (internal quotation marks,
11
citations, and brackets removed). “Rule 23 grants courts no license to engage in free-ranging
12
merits inquiries at the certification stage.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
13
Plaintiffs submit the opinion of their chemistry expert, Dr. Randy Meirowitz, who tested
14
the Woolite products at issue and concluded that they do not renew or revive color in clothing.
15
Reckitt challenges the admissibility of Dr. Meirowitz’s opinion under Federal Rule of Evidence
16
702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). For the reasons discussed
17
below, the Court determines that Dr. Meirowitz’s opinion is admissible and capable of
18
establishing on a classwide basis that the color renew/revive representation was false or
19
misleading.
20
Rule 702 provides that a qualified expert may testify if “(a) the expert’s scientific,
21
technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or
22
to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony
23
is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the
24
principles and methods to the facts of the case.” Fed. R. Evid. 702. The Supreme Court’s trilogy
25
of cases addressing the admissibility of expert testimony – Daubert, 509 U.S. 579, General Elec.
26
Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997), and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) –
27
require the district court to play a “gatekeeping” role, ensuring that any expert opinion admitted is
28
both relevant and reliable. So long as an expert’s methodology is sound and his opinions satisfy
10
1
the requirements of Rule 702, underlying factual disputes and how much weight to accord the
2
expert’s opinion are questions for the jury. See Primiano v. Cook, 598 F.3d 558, 565 (9th Cir.
3
2010).
4
Dr. Meirowitz has a Ph.D. in chemistry and more than 30 years of experience in surface
5
science, including the testing of textiles. See Kafka Decl. Exh. 27, Meirowitz Report ¶¶ 12-14.
6
He designed and oversaw testing to determine whether Woolite laundry detergent renews or
7
revives color in clothing. See id. ¶¶ 38-47. The testing was based on American Association
8
Textile Chemists and Colorists (“AATCC”) protocols, the industry standard for the testing of
9
textiles in the United States. See id. ¶¶ 31-34. Dr. Meirowitz states that in his experience, the
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
standardized tests from the AATCC are widely accepted for use in testing clothing. See id. ¶ 34.
The testing was conducted at an accredited laboratory, TexTest Laboratories in Columbus,
12
Georgia. See Kafka Decl. Exh. 27, Meirowitz Report ¶ 40. Dr. Meirowitz elected to use eight
13
samples of cotton clothing for the test, four navy blue t-shirts and four red t-shirts. See id. ¶ 35.
14
The t-shirts were washed with detergent from a 150-ounce bottle of Woolite Darks laundry
15
detergent purchased in 2019. See id. ¶ 36. The front label of the Woolite bottle displayed the
16
phrase “COLOR RENEW,” and the back label displayed the phrases “COLOR RENEW” and
17
“revives colors.” See id. Pursuant to the instructions on the detergent bottle, the t-shirts were
18
machine washed in cold water twenty-five times. See id. ¶ 41. A Datacolor spectrophotometer
19
was used to measure the color of the unwashed t-shirts and then the color of the t-shirts at 1, 2, 10,
20
15, and 25 washes. See id. ¶ 42. All eight t-shirts lost a substantial amount of color after 10
21
washes. See id. ¶ 44. The t-shirts continued to lose a substantial amount of color between 10 and
22
25 washes. See id. Based on this testing, Dr. Meirowitz concluded that Woolite laundry detergent
23
does not renew or revive color in clothing. See id. ¶ 45.
24
Reckitt contends that Dr. Meirowitz’s test is inadmissible under Rule 702 and the Daubert
25
line of cases because it did not analyze the relevant question of whether Woolite laundry detergent
26
renews or revives color in clothing. Plaintiffs allege that they understood the color renew/revive
27
representation to mean that Woolite detergent would bring color back to their clothing. Reckitt
28
argues that Dr. Meirowitz did not test whether that was true, because he started with new t-shirts,
11
1
and color cannot be brought back to new clothing. In their reply, Plaintiffs point out that Dr.
2
Meirowitz’s testing showed loss of color between 0 and 10 washes, and additional loss of color
3
between 10 and 25 washes. See Kafka Decl. Exh. 27, Meirowitz Report ¶ 44. Thus, even if the
4
first wash did not provide an opportunity for the Woolite detergent to bring color back to the t-
5
shirts, that opportunity was provided at all subsequent washes. By wash 10, the t-shirts no longer
6
qualified as new. However, color continued to be lost between wash 10 and wash 25. The Court
7
finds Reckitt’s challenge to Dr. Meirowitz’s methodology to be without merit.
8
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
Reckitt asserts that Dr. Meirowitz’s testing was not reliable because he did not control for
all potential causes of color change, citing to his deposition testimony. See Henry Exh. 3,
10
Meirowitz Dep. 21:20-22. Prior to the cited portion of his deposition transcript, Dr. Meirowitz
11
had been asked whether he understood that Reckitt’s color renew/revive representation was based
12
on removal of pilling and fuzz from fabric. See id. 20:22-21:9. Dr. Meirowitz stated that he had
13
reviewed documents on Reckitt’s new chemical formulation and its effect on cotton fabric, but
14
that during testing “[t]he probe was into color renewal, not quantifying a method and excluding
15
any other possibilities for color change.” Id. 21:20-22. That testimony does not undermine Dr.
16
Meirowitz’s testing results; rather it confirms that Dr. Meirowitz tested for color renewal and not
17
anything else.
18
Finally, Reckitt argues that Dr. Meirowitz’s opinion is inadmissible because he did not
19
personally wash the t-shirts but instead relied on the report created by TexTest, the accredited
20
laboratory that performed the test Dr. Meirowitz designed. According to Reckitt, the TexTest
21
report is inadmissible hearsay, and any opinion based on that hearsay is inadmissible. Under
22
Federal Rule of Evidence 703, “An expert may base an opinion on facts or data in the case that the
23
expert has been made aware of or personally observed.” Fed. R. Evid. 703 (emphasis added). “If
24
experts in the particular field would reasonably rely on those kinds of facts or data in forming an
25
opinion on the subject, they need not be admissible for the opinion to be admitted.” Id. In this
26
manner, “Rule 703 relaxes, for experts, the requirement that witnesses have personal knowledge of
27
the matter to which they testify.” Claar v. Burlington N. R. Co., 29 F.3d 499, 501 (9th Cir. 1994).
28
“Experts may offer opinions based on otherwise inadmissible testimonial hearsay if experts in the
12
1
particular field would reasonably rely on those kinds of facts or data in forming an opinion on the
2
subject, and if they are applying their training and experience to the sources before them and
3
reaching an independent judgment, as opposed to merely acting as a transmitter for testimonial
4
hearsay.” Erhart v. BofI Holding, Inc., 445 F. Supp. 3d 831, 839 (S.D. Cal. 2020) (internal
5
quotation marks, citations, and brackets omitted). Based on these authorities, the Court finds that
6
Dr. Meirowitz’s reliance on testing performed by TexTest does not render his opinion
7
inadmissible.
Caldwell and Mejia, cited by Reckitt, stand for the proposition that “expert witnesses may
United States District Court
Northern District of California
8
9
not simply repeat hearsay without bringing their expertise to bear” on it. Caldwell v. City of San
10
Francisco, No. 12-CV-01892-DMR, 2021 WL 1391464, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2021) (internal
11
quotation marks, citation, and brackets omitted); see also United States v. Mejia, 545 F.3d 179,
12
197 (2d Cir. 2008) (“The expert may not, however, simply transmit that hearsay to the jury. . . .
13
Instead, the expert must form his own opinions by ‘applying his extensive experience and a
14
reliable methodology’ to the inadmissible materials.”). Caldwell and Mejia are inapplicable here,
15
because Dr. Meirowitz brought his own expertise to bear in designing and analyzing the testing
16
performed by TexTest.
Having determined that Dr. Meirowitz’s opinion is admissible and capable of establishing
17
18
that the color renew/revive representation was false or misleading, the Court need not address
19
Plaintiffs’ additional proffered evidence of falsity.
c.
20
Conclusion Re Commonality
The Court finds that Plaintiffs have identified common questions that are central to the
21
22
validity of all claims remaining in the SAC. The Court finds Reckitt’s arguments that Plaintiffs
23
have not established classwide exposure, or the existence of common evidence, to be without
24
merit.
25
26
27
28
The Court finds that the commonality requirement is satisfied.
3.
Typicality
Rule 23(a)(3) requires that “the [legal] claims or defenses of the representative parties [be]
typical of the claims or defenses of the class.” Typicality is satisfied “when each class member’s
13
1
claim arises from the same course of events, and each class member makes similar legal
2
arguments to prove the defendants’ liability.” Rodriguez v. Hayes, 591 F.3d 1105, 1124 (9th Cir.
3
2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “The requirement is permissive, such that
4
representative claims are typical if they are reasonably coextensive with those of absent class
5
members; they need not be substantially identical.” Just Film, Inc. v. Buono, 847 F.3d 1108, 1116
6
(9th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). However, “[a] court should not
7
certify a class if there is a danger that absent class members will suffer if their representative is
8
preoccupied with defenses unique to it.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
Plaintiffs assert that the typicality requirement is satisfied because all claims, including
10
their own and those of putative class members, arise from exposure to the same color renew/revive
11
representation on Woolite labels. Reckitt suggests that three of the six named plaintiffs –
12
Clemmons, Kittredge, and Marshall – are not typical because they did not review the back label
13
before purchase. The cited evidence establishes that Clemmons and Kittredge did not rely on the
14
back label, and that Marshall could not remember whether he saw the back label before purchasing
15
the Woolite detergent. See Henry Decl. Exh. 8, Clemmons Dep. 143:19-144:11; Exh. 10,
16
Kittredge Dep. 83:2-9; Exh. 11, Marshall Dep. 138:19-140:14. This evidence does not render
17
those plaintiffs atypical, however. As discussed above, Plaintiffs’ claims do not require proof of
18
actual reliance on the color renew/revive representation. Plaintiffs need show only that they were
19
exposed to that representation. Plaintiffs have established classwide exposure to the color
20
renew/revive representation, because every bottle of Woolite detergent at issue displayed the
21
phrase “COLOR RENEW” and/or the phrase “revives colors.”
22
23
The Court finds that the typicality requirement is satisfied.
4.
Adequacy
24
To determine Plaintiffs’ adequacy as class representatives, the Court “must resolve two
25
questions: (1) do the named plaintiffs and their counsel have any conflicts of interest with other
26
class members and (2) will the named plaintiffs and their counsel prosecute the action vigorously
27
on behalf of the class?” Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d 970, 985 (9th Cir. 2011)
28
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The record does not reflect any conflicts of
14
United States District Court
Northern District of California
1
interest. Plaintiffs and their counsel have demonstrated their ability and intention to prosecute this
2
action vigorously on behalf of the class. Reckitt does not challenge Plaintiffs’ adequacy as class
3
representatives.
4
The Court finds that the adequacy requirement is satisfied.
5
B.
6
“In addition to satisfying Rule 23(a)’s prerequisites, parties seeking class certification must
Rule 23(b)(3)
7
show that the action is maintainable under Rule 23(b)(1), (2), or (3).” Amchem Prod., Inc. v.
8
Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 614 (1997). Plaintiffs seek certification under Rule 23(b)(3). A class may
9
be certified under Rule 23(b)(3) only if “the court finds that the questions of law or fact common
10
to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a
11
class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the
12
controversy.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). “Further, parties seeking to certify a Rule 23(b)(3) class
13
must also demonstrate that the class is sufficiently ascertainable.” Datta v. Asset Recovery Sols.,
14
LLC, No. 15-CV-00188-LHK, 2016 WL 1070666, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2016).
1.
15
Ascertainability
16
“[A] class is ascertainable if the class is defined with objective criteria and if it is
17
administratively feasible to determine whether a particular individual is a member of the class.”
18
Huynh v. Harasz, No. 14-CV-02367-LHK, 2015 WL 7015567, at *13 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2015)
19
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Plaintiffs do not expressly address the issue of
20
ascertainability. However, the class definitions in this case rely on objective criteria – purchase of
21
Woolite laundry detergent with a label bearing the phrases “Color Renew” and/or “revives colors”
22
during the relevant class period. Reckitt does not dispute the ascertainability of the putative
23
classes.
24
25
The Court finds that the putative classes are ascertainable.
2.
Predominance of Common Questions
26
“When one or more of the central issues in the action are common to the class and can be
27
said to predominate, the action may be considered proper under Rule 23(b)(3) even though other
28
important matters will have to be tried separately, such as damages or some affirmative defenses
15
United States District Court
Northern District of California
1
peculiar to some individual class members.” Olean, 31 F.4th at 668 (internal quotation marks and
2
citation omitted). The plaintiffs need not show that they are likely to succeed on the common
3
issues in the case. See id. at 667. “[A] district court cannot decline certification merely because it
4
considers plaintiffs’ evidence relating to the common question to be unpersuasive and unlikely to
5
succeed in carrying the plaintiffs’ burden of proof on that issue.” Id. If the plaintiffs present
6
evidence that could sustain a reasonable jury verdict on the merits of a common question as to all
7
class members, a district court may conclude that the plaintiffs have carried their burden under
8
Rule 23(b)(3). See id.
9
Plaintiffs assert that common questions of law and fact predominate over individual
10
questions in this case. As discussed above in the context of the Rule 23(a)(2) commonality
11
inquiry, Plaintiffs have demonstrated the existence of substantial common questions relating to
12
liability. Plaintiffs have shown that all putative class members were exposed to the color
13
renew/revive representation, and have presented common evidence (Dr. Meirowitz’s opinion) that
14
the representation was false. In addition, Plaintiffs have shown that their statutory claims are
15
governed by an objective reasonable consumer test, and that none of their claims require proof of
16
individual reliance.
17
Reckitt suggests that the graphic on the back label impacts the predominance inquiry,
18
asserting that “[a]ny consumer reviewing the back label would understand that the Woolite
19
Laundry Detergent revives colors by smoothing rough fibers and removing pilling and fuzz.”
20
Opp. at 22. Reckitt argues that “[a]t a minimum, individual issues predominate as to whether a
21
class member viewed the back label, and, if so, whether he or she understood how the product
22
would work and on which types of fabric.” Id. This argument is misplaced, because Plaintiffs
23
need not show that any putative class member actually reviewed and relied on the back label to
24
prevail on their claims.
25
Based on the foregoing, the Court has no difficulty concluding that Plaintiffs have met
26
their burden to show that common questions of law and fact predominate over individual
27
questions relating to liability. That is not the end of the predominance inquiry, however. “Rule
28
23(b)(3)’s predominance requirement takes into account questions of damages.” Just Film, 847
16
1
F.3d at 1120. Plaintiffs must propose a damages model that is consistent with its theory of
2
liability and capable of measuring damages on a classwide basis. See Comcast Corp. v. Behrend,
3
569 U.S. 27, 34-35 (2013).
Plaintiffs’ theory of liability is that the color renew/revive misrepresentation on the
United States District Court
Northern District of California
4
5
Woolite labels caused putative class members to overpay for the detergent. Plaintiffs seek to
6
recover, as restitution or damages, the “price premium” attributable to the color renew/revive
7
feature they thought they were getting but did not receive. “The difference between what the
8
plaintiff paid and the value of what the plaintiff received is a proper measure of restitution in UCL
9
cases.” In re Vioxx Class Cases, 180 Cal. App. 4th 116, 131 (2009). Plaintiff also seeks this
10
measure of restitution under their quasi-contract theory, which is based on the same facts as their
11
UCL and CLRA claims. With respect to the CLRA claim, the price premium is an appropriate
12
measure of recovery for product mislabeling. See Brazil v. Dole Packaged Foods, LLC, No. 12-
13
CV-01831-LHK, 2014 WL 5794873, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2014). The price premium also is
14
an appropriate measure of damages under New York’s General Business Law §§ 349 and 350.
15
See Hasemann v. Gerber Prod. Co., 331 F.R.D. 239, 275 (E.D.N.Y. 2019). Finally, the price
16
premium is an appropriate measure of damages under Massachusetts’ General Law Chapter 93A.
17
See Aspinall, 442 Mass. at 399 (approving damages measured by “the difference between the price
18
paid by the consumers and the true market value of the ‘misrepresent[ed]’ cigarettes they actually
19
received”).3
20
Plaintiffs offer the opinion of their damages expert, Gregory Pinsonneault, to quantify the
21
price premium paid by the putative class and attributable to the color renew/revive representation
22
on the Woolite labels. See Kafka Decl. Exh. 20, Pinsonneault Report; Exh. 17, Pinsonneault
23
Reply Report. Mr. Pinsonneault has a Bachelor of Science in computer science, a Bachelor of
24
Arts in economics and mathematics, and a Master of Arts degree in economics. See Kafka Decl.
25
Exh. 20, Pinsonneault Report ¶ 6. He has worked as a consultant for nineteen years and currently
26
27
28
As an alternative to the price premium, statutory damages are available under New York’s
General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 and Massachusetts’ General Law Chapter 93A. Plaintiffs
do not seek statutory damages in this case, however – they seek the price premium as the measure
of classwide restitution and damages.
17
3
1
See id. However, Reckitt raised prices. Mr. Pinsonneault opines that the only change that
2
occurred around the time of the
3
¶ 55. He concludes that the
4
renew/revive representation had on the price. See id. ¶ 56. Mr. Pinsonneault acknowledges that
5
there was no price increase on the
6
Darks detergent. See id. ¶¶ 60-61. However, he concludes that Reckitt’s decision not to
7
implement a previously planned price decrease as to those products is attributable to the color
8
renew/revive campaign. See id.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
Recognizing that the
% price increase was the color renew/revive marketing. See id.
% increase is a reasonable measure of the impact that the color
size of Woolite Gentle Cycle detergent and Woolite
% increase was with respect to wholesale prices, Mr. Pinsonneault
10
explains that the general economic rule is that price increases flow through to retail prices. See
11
Kafka Decl. Exh. 20, Pinsonneault Report ¶ 62. He opines that Woolite products do not have the
12
characteristics of the types of products for which a wholesale price increase is not passed through
13
to the consumer. See id. Mr. Pinsonneault therefore concludes that it is reasonable to use the
14
% figure to approximate the price premium paid by each class member and attributable to the
15
color renew/revive representation on the label. See id. ¶ 72. He lays out the mechanics of that
16
calculation and states that it may performed on a classwide basis regardless of variations in the
17
actual prices paid by individual class members. See id. ¶ 73.
18
Reckitt contends that Plaintiffs’ “damages model is not tethered to their theory of liability”
19
as required under Comcast in order to satisfy Rule 23(b)(3). Opp. at 23. In Comcast, the plaintiffs
20
initially relied on four theories of antitrust liability and calculated aggregate damages based on
21
those four theories. See Comcast, 569 U.S. at 36-37. However, the district court certified the
22
class based on only one of the four theories. See id. at 35. The plaintiffs did not offer a method of
23
calculating damages for liability stemming from that theory alone. See id. Pointing out that “a
24
model purporting to serve as evidence of damages in this class action must measure only those
25
damages attributable to that [surviving] theory,” the Supreme Court determined that “[i]f the
26
model does not even attempt to do that, it cannot possibly establish that damages are susceptible of
27
measurement across the entire class for purposes of Rule 23(b)(3).” Id. The Ninth Circuit has
28
“interpreted Comcast to mean that plaintiffs must be able to show that their damages stemmed
19
1
from the defendant’s actions that created the legal liability.” Vaquero v. Ashley Furniture Indus.,
2
Inc., 824 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In the
3
present case, the damages model articulated by Mr. Pinsonneault is firmly tethered to Plaintiffs’
4
theory of liability. Plaintiffs seek to recover the price premium they paid for the color
5
renew/revive feature promised on the Woolite labels. The price premium is an appropriate
6
measure of recovery for all of their claims. Mr. Pinsonneault’s damages model is designed to
7
calculate that price premium for each class member. “Therefore, even if the measure of damages
8
proposed here is imperfect, it cannot be disputed that the damages (if any are proved) stemmed
9
from Defendant[’s] actions.” Vaquero, 824 F.3d at 1155.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Reckitt’s real quibble with Plaintiffs’ damages model is the method by which Mr.
11
Pinsonneault proposes to calculate the price premium. Reckitt does not assert a Daubert challenge
12
to Mr. Pinsonneault’s opinion. However, Reckitt cites numerous cases in which damages models
13
were rejected, and it argues that Plaintiffs’ damages model suffers from similar defects. In Brazil,
14
a consumer class action based on alleged misrepresentations in product labeling, the district court
15
initially approved the plaintiffs’ use of a regression model to calculate the price premium
16
attributable to the allegedly misleading label statements. See Brazil, 2014 WL 5794873, at *5.
17
The district court subsequently decertified the class in part, finding that the plaintiffs’ regression
18
model failed to isolate a price premium attributable to the labeling claim. See id. In Zakaria, the
19
Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decertification of a product labeling class that initially
20
had been certified based on a damages model using conjoint analysis. Zakaria v. Gerber Prod.
21
Co., 755 F. App’x 623, 624 (9th Cir. 2018). The Ninth Circuit determined that the conjoint
22
analysis showed only how much consumers subjectively valued the labeling at issue, but did not
23
contain any evidence that consumers had paid higher prices based on that labeling. See id. at 624-
24
25. In In re Graphics Processing Units, the district court found that the plaintiffs’ damages model
25
did not support class certification, because it did not demonstrate how pass-through of wholesale
26
pricing to retailers could be established absent a wholesaler-by-wholesaler and re-seller-by-re-
27
seller investigation. See In re Graphics Processing Units, 253 F.R.D. 478, 505 (N.D. Cal 2008).
28
These cases are factually distinguishable from the present case, in which Mr. Pinsonneault
20
1
uses Reckitt’s documented
2
Pinsonneault explains how he isolated the price premium paid for the color renew/revive
3
representation by discounting other explanations for the
4
in Brazil. Unlike the model in Zakaria, Mr. Pinsonneault’s model is based on an actual
5
priced increase implemented by Reckitt, not on a mere hypothetical. In re Graphics Processing
6
Units was an antitrust case in which calculation of damages was complicated by an intricate
7
distribution chain involving multiple distribution channels. That court’s discussion of pass-
8
through in circumstances very different from those in this case is not particularly helpful.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
% price increase as an approximation for the price premium. Mr.
% price, addressing the problem raised
%
“In calculating damages, here restitution, California law requires only that some reasonable
10
basis of computation of damages be used, and the damages may be computed even if the result
11
reached is an approximation.” Pulaski & Middleman, LLC v. Google, Inc., 802 F.3d 979, 989 (9th
12
Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In Nguyen, the Ninth Circuit reversed
13
the district court’s denial of class certification in a consumer class action alleging that the
14
defendants sold vehicles with a faulty clutch system. Nguyen v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., 932 F.3d 811
15
(9th Cir. 2019). The plaintiff sought to recover damages equaling the amount he purportedly
16
overpaid in purchasing a vehicle with a defective clutch, and his damages model used the cost of
17
replacing the defective clutch as a proxy for the amount of his overpayment. See id. at 821. The
18
Ninth Circuit found that the plaintiff’s damages model satisfied Comcast, stating that “[w]hether
19
his proposed calculation of the replacement cost is accurate, whether the clutch was actually
20
defective, and whether Nissan knew of the alleged defect are merits inquiries unrelated to class
21
certification.” Id. The Ninth Circuit concluded that, “For now, it is sufficient that Plaintiff has
22
demonstrated the nexus between his legal theory – that Nissan violated California law by selling
23
vehicles with a defective clutch system that was not reflected in the sale price – and his damages
24
model – the average cost of repair.” Id.
25
In the present case, this Court likewise finds that, at the class certification stage, it is
26
sufficient that Plaintiffs have demonstrated a nexus between their legal theory and their damages
27
model. Whether Mr. Pinsonneault’s proposed calculation for the price premium is accurate is a
28
question to be decided at a later date.
21
The Court finds that the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) is satisfied.
1
3.
2
To satisfy Rule 23(b)(3), Plaintiffs must demonstrate that “a class action is superior to
3
4
other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
5
23(b)(3). Rule 23 lists the following factors that Courts should consider in making this
6
determination: “(A) the class members’ interests in individually controlling the prosecution or
7
defense of separate actions; (B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy
8
already begun by or against class members; (C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating
9
the litigation of the claims in the particular forum; and (D) the likely difficulties in managing a
10
class action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).
Plaintiffs assert that class members’ interests in bringing separate actions is minimal, as
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Superiority of Class Action
12
any recovery under such an action would be dwarfed by the cost of litigation. Plaintiffs state that
13
there are no other relevant cases pending. Defendant consented to Plaintiffs’ addition of state law
14
claims from other jurisdiction – New York and Massachusetts – to this suit. Finally, the issues
15
presented by this action are manageable given the defined class and the existence of common
16
proof regarding central issues. Reckitt does not offer any argument regarding these factors and the
17
Court finds Plaintiffs’ arguments to be persuasive.
The Court finds that the superiority requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) is satisfied.
18
19
IV.
ORDER
20
(1)
Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is GRANTED.
21
(2)
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Court hereby certifies the
22
following Classes:
23
(a)
California Class: All residents of California who purchased Woolite
24
laundry detergent with a label bearing the phrases “Color Renew” and/or
25
“revives colors” from February 1, 2017 to the present.
26
(b)
New York Class: All residents of New York who purchased Woolite
27
laundry detergent with a label bearing the phrases “Color Renew” and/or
28
“revives colors” from February 22, 2018 to the present.
22
(c)
1
2
Woolite laundry detergent with a label bearing the phrases “Color Renew”
3
and/or “revives colors” from February 22, 2017 to the present.
4
(3)
Excluded from the Classes are the Defendant, any entity in which Defendant has a
5
controlling interest, and Defendant’s officers, directors, legal representatives,
6
successors, subsidiaries, and assigns. Also excluded are any judge, justice, or
7
judicial officer presiding over this matter and the members of their immediate
8
families and judicial staff.
9
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Massachusetts Class: All residents of Massachusetts who purchased
(4)
The Court appoints Steven Prescott, Donovan Marshall, and Treahanna Clemmons
10
as class representatives for the California Class; Maria Christine Anello as class
11
representative for the New York Class; Darlene Kittredge and Susan Graciale as
12
class representatives for the Massachusetts Class; and Eric Kafka of Cohen
13
Milstein Sellers & Toll as class counsel for the Classes.
14
(5)
Notice shall be provided to the Classes as required under Rule 23.
15
(6)
This order terminates ECF 111.
16
17
18
19
Dated: July 14, 2022
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
23
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?