Dremak v. Iovate Health Sciences Group, Inc. et al
Filing
303
ORDER Denying Iovate Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Ordering More Definite Statement as to Claims Against Retailer Defendants, and Denying Retailer Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The Iovate Defendants' motion is Denied without prejudic e. The Retailer Defendants' motion is also Denied because the Court orders Plaintiffs to file a more definite statement as detailed above. The Iovate Defendants shall file an Answer to the SAC within 20 days of the entry of this Order. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 1/27/2014.(rlu)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
CASE NO. 09md2087 BTM (KSC)
IN RE HYDROXYCUT
MARKETING AND SALES
PRACTICES LITIGATION
14
____________________________
15
ANDREW DREMAK, on Behalf of
Himself, All Others Similarly
Situated and the General Public,
16
17
18
19
20
21
CASE NO. 09cv1088 BTM(KSC)
ORDER DENYING IOVATE
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS, ORDERING MORE
DEFINITE STATEMENT AS TO
CLAIMS AGAINST RETAILER
DEFENDANTS, AND DENYING
RETAILER DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS
Plaintiff,
v.
IOVATE HEALTH SCIENCES
GROUP, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
22
23
The Iovate Defendants (Iovate Health Sciences, Inc., Iovate Health
24
Sciences U.S.A., Inc., and Kerr Investment Holding Corp.) have filed a motion to
25
dismiss Count I, in part, and Counts VII and IX, in their entirety from Plaintiffs’
26
Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (“SAC”). The Retailer
27
Defendants (GNC Corporation, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Walgreens Company, CVS
28
Caremark Corp., Vitamin Shoppe Industries, Inc., NBTY, Inc., BJ’s Wholesale
1
09md2087
1
Club, Inc., Kmart Corporation, and Rite Aid Corporation) have filed a separate
2
motion to dismiss Counts I-XV and Count XVII of the SAC. For the reasons
3
discussed above, the Court DENIES the Iovate Defendants’ motion to dismiss
4
and the Retailer Defendants’ motion to dismiss and orders Plaintiffs to file a more
5
definite statement as to the Retailer Defendants.
6
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
7
8
On December 22, 2009, the First Consolidated Amended Class action
9
Complaint (“FAC”) was filed in this multi-district litigation. Twenty named plaintiffs
10
asserted claims on behalf of themselves and a putative nationwide class of
11
persons who purchased Hydroxycut Products (14 specific Hydroxycut-branded
12
products).
13
In an order filed on May 31, 2011, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ consumer
14
protection, express warranty, and unjust enrichment claims against the Iovate
15
Defendants and Retailer Defendants. The Court held that Plaintiffs had failed to
16
satisfy Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading standard because the FAC was vague as
17
to what representations each plaintiff relied on and whether each plaintiff actually
18
saw advertising claims before purchasing the Hydroxycut Product.
19
On August 8, 2011, Plaintiffs filed the SAC. In the SAC, twenty plaintiffs
20
bring the following claims against "Defendants," which include the "Manufacturer
21
Defendants" as well as the "Retailer Defendants": (I) violations of 41 states'
22
consumer protection statutes; (II) violations of Arizona's Consumer Fraud Act; (III)
23
violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act; (IV) violations of
24
California's Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq.; (V) violations of
25
Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act; (VI) violations of Florida's
26
Statutory False Advertising Law; (VII) violations of Georgia's Fair Business
27
Practices Act; (VIII) violations of Illinois' Consumer Fraud Act; (IX) violations of
28
Louisiana's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law; (X) violations
2
09md2087
1
of New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act; (XI) violations of New York's General
2
Business Law, § 349; (XII) violations of Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices
3
and Consumer Protection Law; (XIII) violations of Texas's Deceptive Trade
4
Practices-Consumer Protection Act; (XIV) violations of West Virginia's Consumer
5
Credit and Protection Act; (XV) Breach of Express Warranty under 49 state
6
statutes; (XVI) Breach of Implied Warranty under 49 state statutes; and (XVII)
7
Unjust Enrichment.
8
In March, 2012, the Iovate Defendants and Retailer Defendants filed their
9
respective motions to dismiss. On July 13, 2012, the motions were denied
10
without prejudice due to a tentative settlement that had been reached among the
11
parties.
12
On November 19, 2013, the Court entered an order denying final approval
13
of the Class Action Settlement. In light of the Court’s ruling, the parties wished
14
to proceed with the motions to dismiss the SAC. Therefore, the Court deemed
15
the motions re-filed and reset the motions for hearing.
16
On January 2, 2014, the Court heard oral argument on the motions.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
II. DISCUSSION
A. Iovate Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
The Iovate Defendants move to Dismiss Count I in part, and Counts VII and
IX in their entirety on the ground that the consumer protection laws of Georgia
(Ga. Code Ann. § 10-1-399(a)), Louisiana (LSA-RS 51:1409.A), Montana (Mont.
Code Ann. § 30-14-133(a)), South Carolina (S.C. Code Ann. § 39-5-140(a)), and
Tennessee (Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-18-109(g)), do not allow class actions.1 As
25
26
27
28
1
The Iovate Defendants’ moving papers relied on the laws of Iowa, Mississippi,
Alabama, and Virginia as well. However, the Iovate Defendants subsequently abandoned their
argument regarding Plaintiffs Virginia claims. As for Iowa, Mississippi, and Alabama, Plaintiffs’
counsel pointed out at oral argument that Count I actually does not include these states.
3
09md2087
1
discussed below, the Court denies the Iovate Defendants’ motion to dismiss
2
because the Court concludes that the claims are governed by Federal Rule of
3
Civil Procedure 23,which allows a class action to be maintained if certain
4
preconditions are met.
5
Relying on Justice Stevens’ concurring opinion in Shady Grove Orthopedic
6
Ass’n v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393 (2010), the Iovate Defendants argue that
7
Rule 23 would not apply to the state claims at issue, because application of the
8
Rule would be outside the scope of the Rules Enabling Act, which provides that
9
rules of procedure “shall not abridge, enlarge, or modify a substantive right.” 28
10
U.S.C. § 2072(b). According to the Iovate Defendants, the state provisions
11
prohibiting class actions are found within the state consumer protection acts and
12
are therefore so intertwined with state rights or remedies that application of Rule
13
23 would violate the Rules Enabling Act.
14
The Iovate Defendants would have a strong argument if Justice Stevens’
15
opinion were the controlling one. However, the Court does not believe this to be
16
the case. Many of the courts that hold that Justice Stevens’ concurring opinion
17
is the controlling opinion of Shady Grove rely on Marks v. United States, 430 U.S.
18
188, 193 (1977), where the Supreme Court explained, “[T]he holding of the Court
19
may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the
20
judgments on the narrowest grounds . . . .”2 But Marks has no application here.
21
As explained by the Ninth Circuit in Lair v. Bullock, 697 F.3d 1200, 1205 (9th Cir.
22
2012), the Marks standard should only be applied “where an opinion can be
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
See, e.g., Bearden v. Honeywell Int’l Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 83996, at * 28-30
(M.D. Tenn. Aug. 16, 2010) (applying Justice Stevens’ approach and finding that the classaction limitation contained in the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act is part of Tennessee’s
framework of substantive rights and remedies); Tait v. BSH Home Appliances Corp., 2011 U.S.
Dist. Lexis 54456, at * 23-24 (C.D. Cal. May 12, 2011) (concluding that Justice Stevens’
concurring opinion can properly be viewed as controlling and holding that plaintiffs may not
bring class actions under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act); Stalvey v. American Bank
Holdings, Inc., 2013 WL 6019320, at *4 (D.S.C. Nov. 13, 2013) (treating Justice Stevens’
opinion as controlling and holding that prohibitions against class actions are substantive
portions of the South Carolina law).
4
09md2087
1
meaningfully regarded as narrower than another and can represent a common
2
denominator of the Court’s reasoning.”
3
narrowest opinion is actually the logical subset of other, broader opinions, such
4
that it embodies a position implicitly approved by at least five Justices who
5
support the judgment.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
This standard “requires that the
6
In Shady Grove, the different opinions of the fractured Court took
7
contrasting approaches to determining whether a New York statute prohibiting
8
class actions in suits seeking penalties or statutory minimum damages precluded
9
a federal district court sitting in diversity from entertaining a class action under
10
Rule 23. Justice Scalia, writing for himself and Justices Roberts, Thomas and
11
Sotomayor, explained that in determining whether a rule is within the Rules
12
Enabling Act, the determinative inquiry is what the rule regulates: “If it governs
13
only ‘the manner and means’ by which the litigation and rights are enforced, it is
14
valid; if it alters ‘the rules of decision by which [the] court will adjudicate [those]
15
rights,’ it is not.” Id. at 407. According to this opinion, the effect the rule might
16
have on state substantive or procedural law is irrelevant - the focus must be on
17
the substantive or procedural nature of the federal rule.
18
In contrast, Justice Stevens took the position that courts must look to the
19
nature of the state law being displaced to determine whether the federal rule
20
violates the Rules Enabling Act. Justice Stevens reasoned that a federal rule
21
“cannot govern a particular case in which the rule would displace a state law that
22
is procedural in the ordinary sense of the term but is so intertwined with a state
23
right or remedy that it functions to define the scope of the state-created right.” Id.
24
at 423.
25
The dissent (Justices Ginsburg, Kennedy, Breyer, and Alito) found that
26
there was no unavoidable conflict between Rule 23 and the New York statute and
27
proceeded with an Erie analysis. The dissent emphasized that federal courts
28
should be sensitive to state interests and should not find a conflict if the federal
5
09md2087
1
rule can be rationally read to avoid any collision. The dissent took the view that
2
Rule 23 described a method of enforcing a claim for relief, whereas the New York
3
statute defined the dimensions of the claim itself.
4
The Court is not convinced that Justice Stevens’ opinion is the “logical
5
subset” of the plurality’s or that Stevens’ opinion represents a common
6
denominator.
7
of the splintered decision is its specific result. Lair, 697 F.3d at 1205.
8
Shady Grove does not provide the Court with much guidance.
Where there is no such narrow opinion, the only binding aspect
Thus,
9
Because the Ninth Circuit has not yet voiced an opinion on how to apply
10
Shady Grove, the Court looks to pre-Shady Grove Ninth Circuit cases analyzing
11
whether the application of federal rules in certain situations would violate the
12
Rules Enabling Act. As explained below, prior to Shady Grove, when determining
13
whether a federal rule ran afoul of the Rules Enabling Act, the Ninth Circuit
14
examined whether the rule that conflicted with the federal rule at issue was
15
substantive or procedural.
16
In In re Greene, 223 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2000), the Ninth Circuit determined
17
that Bankruptcy Rule 9006(a), which governs the computation of periods of time
18
and provides for an enlargement of time when the last day of a time period falls
19
on a weekend, did not extend the 90-day period under 11 U.S.C. § 547(b), during
20
which time certain transfers are voidable by the trustee. In reaching its decision,
21
the Ninth Circuit followed Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460 (1965), and focused its
22
inquiry on whether § 547(b) regulated procedure - the “judicial process for
23
enforcing rights and duties recognized by the substantive law and for justly
24
administering remedy and redress for disregard or infraction of them” - or
25
substantive rights. Greene, 223 F.3d at 1071-72 (quoting Hanna, 380 U.S. at
26
464). The Ninth Circuit concluded that the power of the trustee to avoid any
27
preferential transfer within 90 days before the filing date of the petition is a
28
substantive right independent of the process of enforcing litigants’ rights. Id. at
6
09md2087
1
1071. “[T]he statutory mandate that a transfer, in order to be avoidable, be made
2
‘on or within 90 days before the filing date of the petition,’ is a ‘rule[ ] of decision’
3
by which a court will adjudicate a bankruptcy trustee’s substantive right to avoid
4
a transfer.” Id. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit held that the application of Rule
5
9006(a) to the 90-day preference period would violate the Rules Enabling Act.
6
In Freund v. Nycomed Amersham, 347 F.3d 752 (9th Cir. 2003), the
7
question before the court was whether Fed. R. Civ. P. 50, which governs when
8
a party can raise arguments in support of a motion for judgment as a matter of
9
law, trumps California law that the appealability of punitive damage awards is not
10
waivable. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the California no-waiver rule did not
11
create any substantive right:
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
It does not add, subtract, or define any of the elements necessary to
justify punitive damages; it merely establishes when and how those
pre-existing substantive rules can be reviewed. Thus, in overriding
the California no-waiver rule, Federal Rule 50 does not run afoul of
the Rules Enabling Act, because its application ‘affects only the
process of enforcing litigants' rights and not the rights themselves.’
Burlington N.R. Co. v. Woods, 480 U.S. 1, 8, 107 S.Ct. 967, 94
L.Ed.2d 1 (1987) . . . .
Id. at 762. See also McCalla v. Royal MacCabees Life Ins. Co., 369 F.3d 1128
(9th Cir. 2004) (holding that Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), not Nevada law, governs when
a litigant may make a postjudgment motion for prejudgment interest, because any
Nevada rule that a party may make a postjudgment motion for prejudgment
interest at any time, does not define the substantive entitlement to prejudgment
interest, just “when and how” the entitlement to prejudgment interest can be
reviewed).
Whether the state statutory provisions that prohibit class actions for unfair
or deceptive practices are “procedural” or “substantive,” is a difficult question with
no clear answer. However, the Court tends to view these limitations on class
actions as procedural in nature. In Shady Grove, Justice Scalia explained:
27
28
7
09md2087
3
A class action, no less than traditional joinder (of which it is a
species), merely enables a federal court to adjudicate claims of
multiple parties at once, instead of separate suits. And like traditional
joinder, it leaves the parties’ legal rights and duties intact and the
rules of decision unchanged.
4
Shady Grove, 559 U.S. at 408. Conversely, a rule barring class actions does not
5
prevent individuals who would otherwise be members of the class from bringing
6
their own separate suits or joining in a preexisting lawsuit. The substantive rights
7
of these individuals are not affected. The prohibitions against class actions only
8
affect “how the claims are processed.” Id.
9
prohibitions are within the individual state consumer protection acts, as opposed
1
2
10
The fact that the class action
to free-standing rules, does not alter the Court’s conclusion.
11
Accordingly, application of Rule 23 to Plaintiffs’ claims does not run afoul
12
of the Rules Enabling Act. Rule 23 governs Plaintiffs’ claims, and Plaintiffs’
13
claims are not subject to dismissal based on the state statutes prohibiting class
14
actions. Therefore, the Court DENIES the Iovate Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
15
However, the denial is without prejudice, and the Iovate Defendants may file a
16
new motion in the event that the Ninth Circuit addresses Shady Grove.
17
18
19
20
B. Retailer Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
1.
Rule 9(b) and Failure to Allege Facts Supporting Liability
of Retailer Defendants for Representations Regarding
Purchased Hydroxycut Products
21
22
The Retailer Defendants again move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ consumer
23
protection claims (Counts I-XIV) on the ground that Plaintiffs have failed to plead
24
fraud with particularity as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). As discussed below,
25
the Court finds that Plaintiffs have not satisfied the pleading requirements of Rule
26
9(b). Furthermore, whether Rule 9(b) applies or not, most of the Plaintiffs fail to
27
state a claim under the various state consumer protection laws because Plaintiffs
28
do not allege facts that establish that the Retailer Defendants participated in or
8
09md2087
1
controlled representations that the Plaintiffs heard or saw before purchasing the
2
Hydroxycut Products in question.
3
Due to the manner in which the SAC is pled, the Court finds that Rule 9(b)
4
applies to all of Plaintiffs’ consumer protection claims. In Kearns, the Ninth
5
Circuit held that Rule 9(b) governed Kearns’s claims under the CLRA (Cal. Bus.
6
& Prof. Code §§ 1750-1784) and UCL (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200-17210)
7
that Ford and its dealerships made misrepresentations regarding the safety and
8
reliability of its Certified Pre-Owned (“CPO”) vehicles to increase sales of the
9
vehicles. Although the Ninth Circuit recognized that fraud is not a necessary
10
element of a claim under the CLRA and UCL, the Ninth Circuit explained: “A
11
plaintiff may allege a unified course of fraudulent conduct and rely entirely on that
12
course of conduct as the basis of that claim. In that event, the claim is said to be
13
‘grounded in fraud’ or to ‘sound in fraud,’ and the pleading . . . as a whole must
14
satisfy the particularity requirement of Rule 9(b).” Id. at 1125. The Ninth Circuit
15
explained that Kearns was alleging that Ford engaged in a fraudulent course of
16
conduct and concluded that Kearns had failed to allege with specificity the
17
circumstances surrounding the alleged misrepresentations resulting in his
18
purchase of a CPO vehicle.
19
Here, Plaintiffs are alleging a unified course of fraudulent conduct. Plaintiffs
20
paint the Retailer Defendants as “co-conspirators” with the Manufacturer
21
Defendants. (SCAC ¶ 86.) According to Plaintiffs, the Retailer Defendants
22
participated in the advertising and marketing process with Iovate, adopted
23
Iovate’s product representations as their own, and also made their own false and
24
deceptive statements about the products’ safety and efficacy. (Id.) Throughout
25
the complaint, Plaintiffs generally allege that the Retailer Defendants knew or
26
should have known about the falsity of their representations/advertisements and
27
intentionally engaged in deceiving consumers. (See, e.g., SAC ¶¶ 186,194,
28
207,243, 275).
9
09md2087
1
Applying Rule 9(b), the SAC falls short with respect to the Retailer
2
Defendants. For all but three of the plaintiffs,3 the SAC alleges that prior to
3
purchasing the products, the plaintiffs were exposed to Defendants’ television or
4
print advertisements (without specifying which defendant) or were exposed to
5
advertising in general, in addition to reading the product label in the store. (SAC
6
¶¶ 9–28.) It is unclear whether these plaintiffs saw/heard any representations
7
made or adopted by the Retailer Defendants, as opposed to the Iovate
8
Defendants, and if so, which Retailer Defendant. As previously instructed by the
9
Court, Plaintiffs cannot lump all of the Retailer Defendants together.
10
Setting aside the heightened pleading requirements of Rule 9(b), Plaintiffs’
11
failure to specify which advertisements Plaintiffs were exposed to prior to
12
purchase is fatal to their consumer protection claims because Plaintiffs must
13
allege that each Retailer Defendant made, adopted, or controlled representations
14
that Plaintiffs heard or saw prior to purchasing the products. Under California
15
law, a defendant’s liability for unfair business practices must be based on his
16
personal “participation in the unlawful practices” and “unbridled control” over the
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Plaintiff Oritz claims that he "was exposed to and saw magazine and in-store
advertisement at GNC and Vitamin World, all of which claimed the Product would increase
energy and help with weight-loss." (SAC ¶ 18.) Plaintiff Torres claims that at GNC, he was
exposed to in-store advertising reaffirming advertising he had seen before that the product was
a safe and effective fat burner and weight-loss supplement. (SAC ¶ 25.) Plaintiff Walquer
alleges that he was exposed to in-store advertising at Wal-Mart and Sam's Club, which claimed
that the product was "one of the #1 products for weight loss" and was "approved by the FDA."
(SAC ¶ 27.) Although these plaintiffs could have been more specific about the advertisements
they saw, at least they connect the advertisement they saw/heard with a particular Retailer
Defendant(s). The Court deems their allegations sufficient to state a consumer protection
claim against the identified Retailer Defendants.
In a footnote, Defendants argue that the alleged representations amount to no more
than puffery. This argument is not persuasive because all of the advertisements allegedly
indicated that the product was effective for burning fat or losing weight. Although the statement
that Hydroxycut Regular Drink Packets are “one of the #1 products for weight loss,” is puffery
with respect to the “#1" portion, the underlying claim of the statement is that the product
actually helps weight loss. Representations that Hydroxycut helps weight loss are statements
regarding a specific characteristic of a product and would be actionable. See Cook, Perkiss
and Liehe, Inc v. Northern California Collection Serv. Inc., 911 F.2d 242, 246 (9th Cir. 1990).
However, as discussed below, the claims of these three plaintiffs (and all the other plaintiffs)
are subject to dismissal due to failure to adequately allege circumstances supporting an
inference of knowledge.
10
09md2087
1
practices. Emery v. Visa Int’l Serv. Ass’n, 95 Cal. App.4th 952, 960 (2002)
2
(quoting People v. Toomey, 157 Cal. App. 3d 1, 15 (1984)). “The concept of
3
vicarious liability has no application to actions brought under the unfair business
4
practices act.” Toomey, 157 Cal. App. 3d at 14.
5
absent allegations of participation or control, defendants cannot be held
6
secondarily liable for the acts of third parties. In re Jamster Marketing Lit., 2009
7
WL 1456632, at * 9 (S.D. Cal. May 22, 2009).
Similarly, under the CLRA,
8
Based on the Court’s research, other states similarly require some sort of
9
direct participation or control by a defendant to be held liable for deceptive
10
business practices. For example, in Zekman v. Direct American Marketers, Inc.,
11
695 N.E.2d 853 (Ill. 1998), the Illinois Supreme Court explained that to be held
12
liable under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practice Act
13
(815 ILCS 505/2, 2P), the defendant must have directly participated in the
14
deceptive acts. It is not enough that the defendant knowingly received the
15
benefits of a fraud. Id. at 859 (“Knowingly receiving the benefits of another’s
16
fraud, however, more closely resembles a form of secondary liability.”). Similarly,
17
in Qantel Bus. Systems, Inc. v. Custom Controls Co., 761 S.W.2d 302
18
(Tex.1988), the Supreme Court of Texas held that a defendant cannot be held
19
vicariously liable under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices – Consumer
20
Protection Act, Tex. Bus. & Comm. Code §§ 17.41-63, just because the
21
defendant is “inextricably intertwined” with another who engaged in the wrongful
22
conduct. The court explained:
23
24
25
26
27
The DTPA does not attach derivative liability to its defendants based
on innocent involvement in a business transaction. . . . The traditional
common law theories of vicarious liability, such as agency or
respondeat superior, provide an adequate basis for creating vicarious
liability under the DTPA. The DTPA does not recognize or envision
the expansion of common law theories of vicarious liability to include
‘inextricably intertwined,’ or the mere existence of a ‘relationship’
between parties.
Id. at 305.
28
11
09md2087
1
Plaintiffs
argue
that
the
Retailer
Defendants
adopted
Iovate’s
2
representations as their own and made their own false and deceptive statements.
3
Plaintiffs allege that the Retailer Defendants entered into agreements with Iovate
4
whereby the Retailer Defendants would promote Hydroxycut through their own
5
advertisements and/or would agree to give marketing support such as product
6
displays, in-store flyers, and window signage. (SAC ¶¶ 35-47.)
7
To the extent the Retailer Defendants issued their own advertisements, they
8
could be held liable for misrepresentations therein. Also, to the extent Retailer
9
Defendants displayed Hydroxycut signage or other promotional materials, other
10
than the product and product packaging itself, the Retailer Defendants arguably
11
controlled the advertising and adopted the statements made therein. However,
12
as already discussed, for the majority of the plaintiffs, the SAC does not specify
13
what advertisement they saw or where they saw it. Almost all of the plaintiffs
14
state that they read the label on the product packaging before purchase.
15
However, the Court is unaware of any authority for the proposition that under
16
state consumer protection laws, a retailer adopts statements made on product
17
packaging. Holding retailers liable for all statements made on products that they
18
sell would impose the type of secondary liability that has been rejected by courts.
19
Plaintiffs rely on Dorfman v. Nutramax Lab., Inc., 2013 WL 5353040 (S.D.
20
Cal. Sept. 2013), a case in which the plaintiff brought class action claims alleging
21
that defendant retailers Nutramax, Wal-Mart, and Rite-Aid marketed and sold the
22
“Cosamin” line of “Joint Health Supplements” through false and misleading
23
advertising. The complaint alleged that the defendant retailers repeated and
24
reinforced false and misleading joint health statements on their respective
25
websites. However, the plaintiff himself only claimed to have read and relied on
26
the product labels. The court ruled that contentions regarding differences in
27
product representations were best addressed at the class certification stage. Id.
28
at *7-8. With respect to whether plaintiff stated a UCL and CLRA claim against
12
09md2087
1
the retailer defendants, the court found that allegations that Wal-Mart and Rite-
2
Aid participated in the dissemination and repetition of representations concerning
3
the efficacy of the Cosamin products, including making statements on their
4
websites, sufficiently demonstrated that they “participated in the unlawful
5
practices” with “unbridled control over the practices,” such that they may be
6
subjected to liability under the UCL and CLRA. Id. at *14. In this section of the
7
order, the court did not focus on the plaintiff’s lack of exposure to the
8
representations that were disseminated and repeated by the retailer defendants.
9
To the extent that Dorfman can be read as holding that a retailer defendant
10
who disseminates or repeats deceptive statements can be held liable under the
11
UCL and CLRA for statements on product packaging that the retailer did not
12
control, the Court disagrees with Dorfman. If a retailer goes above and beyond
13
selling a product and displays additional promotional materials, the retailer
14
arguably can be held liable for those specific advertisements, but should not be
15
deemed to have adopted all representations made by the manufacturer about the
16
product.
17
Plaintiffs advance the theory that the Retailer Defendants are liable for
18
whatever representations were made by Iovate because they were aiders and
19
abettors of the deceptive advertising scheme. However, liability for aiding and
20
abetting a tort normally requires that the individual have actual knowledge of the
21
specific primary wrong that he is substantially assisting. See In re First Alliance
22
Mortgage Co., 471 F.3d 977, 993 (9th Cir. 2006).
23
(Second) of Torts § 876 (“For harm resulting to a third person from the tortious
24
conduct of another, one is subject to liability if he (a) does a tortious act in concert
25
with the other or pursuant to a common design with him, or (b) knows that the
26
other’s conduct constitutes a breach of duty and gives substantial assistance or
27
encouragement to the other so to conduct himself, or (c) gives substantial
28
assistance to the other in accomplishing a tortious result and his own conduct,
13
See also Restatement
09md2087
1
separately considered, constitutes a breach of duty to the third person.”). The
2
Court rejects Plaintiffs’ argument that the Retailer Defendants need not have
3
known about the tortious nature of Iovate’s representations to be held liable as
4
aider and abettors.
5
No facts are alleged supporting an inference that the Retailer Defendants
6
knew that representations made by Iovate regarding the safety and efficacy of the
7
products were false or deceptive. Therefore, there are insufficient allegations to
8
support aider and abettor liability on the part of the Retailer Defendants.
9
Because Plaintiffs (other than Ortiz, Torres, and Walquer) (1) do not allege
10
that prior to purchasing a Hydroxycut product, they saw/heard a specific
11
representation made, adopted, or controlled by a Retailer Defendant; and (2) do
12
not allege sufficient facts establishing aider and abettor liability for
13
representations made by Iovate, Plaintiffs do not state a claim under the various
14
state consumer protection laws against the Retailer Defendants.
15
16
2. Knowledge
17
Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ consumer protection claims under
18
California law (Counts III and IV), Florida law (Counts V and VI), Louisiana law
19
(Count IX), New Jersey law (Count X), and New York law (Count XI) on the
20
ground that these laws require that the plaintiff plead and prove knowledge of the
21
alleged defect.4
22
With the exception of Louisiana, it appears that knowledge is not a
23
requirement to maintain an action based on an affirmative representation under
24
the consumer protection laws at issue. In Wilson v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 668
25
F.3d 1136, 1145 (9th Cir. 2012), the Ninth Circuit stated, “Consequently,
26
27
28
4
In a footnote, Defendants contend that thirteen other states’ consumer protection
statutes require knowledge and argue that these state claims should be dismissed from Count
I for the same reasons. The Court does not consider this argument because it was not properly
raised in the motion or sufficiently briefed.
14
09md2087
1
California federal courts have held that, under the CLRA, plaintiffs must
2
sufficiently allege that a defendant was aware of a defect at the time of sale to
3
survive a motion to dismiss.” However, Wilson concerned a fraudulent omission
4
– i.e., failure to disclose a defect – and its language about awareness of defect
5
arguably only applies to cases involving omission as opposed to active
6
misrepresentation.
7
A reason for not requiring knowledge in connection with active
8
misrepresentations under California law is that the CLRA was enacted after the
9
Legislature noted the difficulty consumers faced proving a fraud claim. See
10
Nelson v. Pearson Ford, Co., 186 Cal. App. 4th 983, 1021 (2010).
The
11
Legislature intended that the CLRA “be liberally construed and applied to promote
12
its underlying purposes, which are to protect consumers against unfair and
13
deceptive business practices and to provide efficient and economical procedures
14
to secure such protection.” Id.
15
Knowledge of falsity clearly is not required to state a claim based on an
16
affirmative misrepresentation under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. As
17
explained by the New Jersey Supreme Court, “One who makes an affirmative
18
misrepresentation is liable even in the absence of knowledge of the falsity of the
19
misrepresentation, negligence, or the intent to deceive.” Gennari v. Weichert Co.
20
Realtors, 691 A.2d 350, 365 (N.J. 1996).
21
Under New York and Florida law, knowledge is only necessary to obtain
22
specific types of relief.
The weight of New York law is that proof of scienter is
23
only necessary for treble damages. Intent to defraud is not an element of a
24
statutory claim under N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349. Small v. Lorillard Tobacco Co.,
25
Inc., 720 N.E.2d 892 , 897 (N.Y. 1999). “Although it is not necessary under the
26
statute that a plaintiff establish the defendant's intent to defraud or mislead, proof
27
of scienter permits the court to treble the damages up to $1,000.” Oswego
28
Laborers’ Local 214 Pension Fund v. Marine Midland Bank, NA, 647 N.E.2d 741,
15
09md2087
1
745 (N.Y. 1995). See N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349(h) (“The court may, in its
2
discretion, increase the award of damages to an amount not to exceed three
3
times the actual damages up to one thousand dollars, if the court finds the
4
defendant willfully or knowingly violated this section.”).
5
Under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, “damages,
6
fees, or costs are not recoverable . . . against a retailer who has, in good faith,
7
engaged in the dissemination of claims of a manufacturer or wholesaler without
8
actual knowledge that it violated this part.”
9
However, under § 501.211(a), “anyone aggrieved by a violation of this part may
10
bring an action to obtain a declaratory judgment that an act or practice violates
11
this part and to enjoin a person who has violated, is violating, or is otherwise likely
12
to violate this part.” Thus, a plaintiff can bring an action for injunctive relief
13
against a retailer even if actual knowledge cannot be established.
Fla. Stat. Ann. § 501.211(2).
14
In contrast, it appears that knowledge is required under Louisiana law. To
15
recover under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act, a plaintiff “must prove
16
some element of fraud, misrepresentation, deception or other unethical conduct
17
on defendant’s part.” Marshall v. Citicorp Mortgage, Inc., 601 So.2d 669, 670
18
(La. Ct. App. 1992). “Mere negligence is not sufficient to constitute an unfair
19
trade practice.” Id. at 671. In Target Construction, Inc. v. Baker Pile Driving &
20
Site Work, LLC, 2012 WL 5878855 (E.D. La. Nov. 20, 2012), the court held that
21
the plaintiff’s LUTPA claims failed because plaintiff had not adequately pled intent
22
to deceive as distinguished from mere mistake or negligence.
23
concerned with the intentional deception underlying a defendant’s acts, and
24
Baker has failed to allege such intentional deception on behalf of Target.” Id. at
25
*4.
“LUTPA is
26
But whatever the knowledge requirements of individual states might be,
27
because Plaintiffs have chosen to plead a unified course of fraudulent conduct
28
involving the Iovate Defendants as well as the Retailer Defendants, Plaintiffs must
16
09md2087
1
allege facts supporting an inference of knowledge as to all of the state consumer
2
claims.
3
separately analyzed his claims under the unfairness prong of the UCL (which
4
does not require a showing of fraud). In rejecting this argument, the Ninth Circuit
5
explained:
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
In Kearns, the plaintiff argued that the district court should have
Kearns's TAC alleges a unified course of fraudulent conduct, namely
that Ford Motor Company and its “co-conspirator” dealerships
knowingly misrepresent to the public that CPO vehicles are safer and
more reliable, with an intent to induce reliance and defraud
consumers. Because Kearns's TAC alleges a unified fraudulent
course of conduct, his claims against Ford are grounded in fraud. His
entire complaint must therefore be pleaded with particularity. Thus,
the TAC was properly dismissed and no error was committed by not
separately analyzing his claims under the unfairness prong of the
UCL.
Kearns, 567 F.3d at 1127.
Under the reasoning of Kearns, all of Plaintiffs’ consumer protection claims
must satisfy the particularity requirements of Rule 9(b), regardless of whether
certain state statutes may or may not require knowledge to be established.
Plaintiffs argue that knowledge and intent may be averred generally. Although
that is true, the circumstances of fraud must be stated with particularity. A
plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to support an inference or render plausible
that the defendant acted with the requisite intent. See, e.g., United States v.
Corinthian Colleges, 655 F.3d 984, 997 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining that although
the complaint alleged that the defendant acted with scienter, it did not “clearly
allege sufficient facts to support an inference or render plausible that Corinthian
acted while knowing that its Compensation Program fell outside of the Safe
Harbor Provision on which it was entitled to rely.”); City of Clinton v. Pilgrim’s
Pride Corp., 632 F.3d 148, 154 (5th Cir. 2010) (“While Rule 9(b) provides that
intent and knowledge ‘may be alleged generally,’ this is not license to base claims
of fraud upon conclusory allegations.”); In re DDAVP Direct Purchaser Antitrust
Lit., 585 F.3d 677, 695 (2d Cir. 2009) (“In a case involving multiple defendants,
28
17
09md2087
1
plaintiffs must plead circumstances providing a factual basis for scienter for each
2
defendant; guilt by association is impermissible.”)
3
Plaintiffs have not alleged facts that would give rise to an inference of
4
knowledge on the part of the Retailer Defendants that the advertisements
5
regarding the Hydroxycut Products’ safety and effectiveness were not true. The
6
allegations that the Retailer Defendants “knew or should have known” are
7
conclusory. Therefore, Plaintiffs consumer protection claims fail to state a claim
8
on the additional ground that Plaintiffs have not alleged sufficient facts supporting
9
an inference of knowledge.
10
11
3. Express Warranty and Unjust Enrichment
12
Plaintiffs’ failure to identify representations by the Retailer Defendants that
13
led to Plaintiffs’ purchase of Hydroxycut Products is fatal to their express warranty
14
and unjust enrichment claims.
15
Under U.C.C. § 2-313:
16
(1) Express warranties by the seller are created as follows:
17
(a)
Any affirmation of fact or promise made by
the seller to the buyer which relates to the
goods and becomes part of the basis of the
bargain creates an express warranty that the
goods shall conform to the affirmation or
promise.
(b)
Any description of the goods which is made
part of the basis of the bargain creates an
express warranty that the goods shall
conform to the description.
(c)
Any sample or model which is made part of
the basis of the bargain creates an express
warranty that the whole of the goods shall
conform to the sample or model.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(2) It is not necessary to the creation of an express warranty that the
seller use formal words such as “warrant” or “guarantee” or that he
have a specific intention to make a warranty, but an affirmation
merely of the value of the goods or a statement purporting to be
merely the seller's opinion or commendation of the goods does not
create a warranty.
18
09md2087
1
(Emphasis added.)
2
Although reliance may not need to be proven to establish the formation of
3
an express warranty, at minimum, the buyer must have heard, seen, or received
4
the representations in order for them to form the basis of the bargain. Because
5
most of the Plaintiffs have not specified who made the representations that they
6
were exposed to prior to purchasing the products, their express warranty claims
7
fall short.
8
In the Court’s prior order, the Court dismissed the unjust enrichment claim
9
because it was premised on the consumer protection claims, which had not been
10
pled with particularity. For the same reasons, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’
11
instant unjust enrichment claim fails to state a claim.
12
13
4. Inability to Maintain Class Actions Under Certain State Statutes
14
Retailer Defendants move to dismiss Count I, in part, as well as Count VII
15
and Count IX on the same ground raised by the Iovate Defendants – i.e., that the
16
state consumer protection statutes prohibit class actions. As discussed in
17
Section II.A., supra, the Court concludes that Rule 23 governs Plaintiffs’ claims,
18
and that Plaintiffs’ claims are not subject to dismissal based on the state
19
prohibitions against class actions.
20
21
5. More Definite Statement
22
As discussed above, Plaintiffs’ SAC falls short in several respects.
23
However, in the interests of moving this case along, instead of dismissing
24
Plaintiff’s claims against the Retailer Defendants, the Court orders Plaintiffs to file
25
a more definite statement. In the definite statement, Plaintiffs should be clear as
26
to what theory of liability they are asserting against the Retailer Defendants and
27
should include sufficient factual allegations in support of such theory. If Plaintiffs
28
19
09md2087
1
allege a unified course of fraudulent conduct, Plaintiffs must keep in mind the
2
heightened pleading requirements of Rule 9(b).
3
4
The more definite statement should be in the form of a supplemental
pleading and must be filed within 30 days of the entry of this Order.
5
Within 20 days of the filing of the more definite statement, Retailer
6
Defendants shall either file an answer or file a notice of intention to file a motion
7
to dismiss that briefly specifies the grounds for dismissal. Such grounds must
8
pertain to the deficiencies that are identified in this Order and are the reason for
9
the more definite statement- no new arguments will be entertained.
10
If Retailer Defendants file a notice of intention to file a motion to dismiss,
11
within 10 days of the filing of the notice, counsel for Plaintiffs and the Retailer
12
Defendants must meet and confer about the issues raised in the notice. If the
13
issues are not completely resolved, the parties shall, without delay, file a joint
14
statement that identifies the outstanding disputes. Upon receiving the joint
15
statement, the Court will schedule a status conference.
16
III. CONCLUSION
17
18
For the reasons discussed above, the Iovate Defendants’ motion is
19
DENIED without prejudice.
The Retailer Defendants’ motion is also DENIED
20
because the Court orders Plaintiffs to file a more definite statement as detailed
21
above. The Iovate Defendants shall file an Answer to the SAC within 20 days
22
of the entry of this Order.
23
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
DATED: January 27, 2014
26
27
BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge
United States District Court
28
20
09md2087
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?