Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02449/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02449-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332pi Diversity-Personal Injury

---

1

14-cv-2449-L-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TASNEEM L. MOHAMED,

Plaintiff,

v.

KELLOGG COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No.: 14-cv-2449-L-MDD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION FOR CLASS 

CERTIFICATION

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for class action certification. 

Defendant filed an opposition, and Plaintiff replied. This matter is submitted on the 

briefs pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1. For the reasons which follow, Plaintiff's 

motion for class certification is denied. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a consumer who purchased Gardenburger brand vegetarian hamburgers, 

which are produced by Defendant. Plaintiff alleges she relied on the representation on 

the package that Gardenburgers were "made with natural ingredients." However, 

Gardenburgers contain hexane-processed soy ingredients. Hexane is allegedly derived 

from crude oil, natural gas liquids, or petroleum refinery products. Soy beans are bathed 

in hexane to separate soybean oil from protein. According to the complaint, 

Gardenburgers contain two hexane-processed ingredients: soy lecithin and soy proteins. 

Case 3:14-cv-02449-L-MDD Document 88 Filed 03/23/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 7
2

14-cv-2449-L-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiff claims that the presence of these ingredients renders the claim "made with 

natural ingredients" false and misleading to the consumers, and that based on this 

representation, consumers paid a price premium over comparable products which do not 

claim to be made with natural ingredients.

Plaintiff filed a putative consumer class action in State court, which Defendant 

removed to this Court. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§1332.

In her operative first amended complaint Plaintiff alleges violations of California 

Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.; California False 

Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500 et seq.; California Consumer Legal 

Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750 et seq., and California Uniform Commercial Code 

§ 2313 (express warranty). Defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). The motion was granted insofar as Plaintiff lacks 

standing to seek injunctive relief and has not alleged sufficient facts to base any of her 

claims on the representations made on Defendant's website. (See doc. no. 35.)

Plaintiff moves to certify a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3)

defined as:

All persons who between July 29, 2010 and approximately January 2016, 

purchased Gardenburger products in the State of California that were labeled 

"Made With Natural Ingredients" but contained hexane processed soy 

ingredients.

II. DISCUSSION

"The class action is an exception to the usual rule that litigation is conducted by 

and on behalf of the individual named parties only." Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 

U.S. 338, 348 (2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A party seeking 

class certification must be prepared to show "through evidentiary proof" that it meets all 

requirements of Rule 23(a) and the requirements of at least one of the categories under 

Rule 23(b). Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27, 33 (2013). The court must conduct 

Case 3:14-cv-02449-L-MDD Document 88 Filed 03/23/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 7
3

14-cv-2449-L-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a rigorous analysis to determine whether these requirements are met. Gen. Tel. Co. v. 

Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 161 (1982). If the court is not fully satisfied that the requirements 

of Rules 23(a) and (b) are met, certification should be denied. Id.

The parties' dispute pertains principally to the predominance requirement under 

Rule 23(b)(3), which requires a court to find, among other things, that "the questions of 

law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only 

individual members." Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(b)(3). 

To meet the predominance requirement, among other things, the "plaintiffs must be 

able to show that their damages stemmed from the defendant's actions that created the 

legal liability." Vaquero v. Ashley Furniture Indus., 824 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2016) 

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (discussing Comcast). In Comcast, the 

plaintiffs advanced four theories of liability, only one of which was approved for class 

treatment. 569 U.S. at 35. The plaintiffs' proposed damage calculation would include 

damages caused by all four theories combined. Id. at 36. However, if the plaintiffs 

prevailed, they would be entitled only to damages resulting from one theory of liability. 

Id. at 35. The Court held, 

[A] model purporting to serve as evidence of damages in this class action 

must measure only those damages attributable to that theory. If the model 

does not even attempt to do that, it cannot possibly establish that damages 

are susceptible to measurement across the entire class for purposes of Rule 

23(b)(3). 

Id. 

Defendant argues that Plaintiff's proposed model of damages does not meet this 

standard.

Plaintiff's theory of liability and damages is that consumers paid excess 

money for Gardenburger products under the mistaken belief that they were 

made with natural ingredients. . . . Thus, the damages at issue are the 

/ / / / /

Case 3:14-cv-02449-L-MDD Document 88 Filed 03/23/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 7
4

14-cv-2449-L-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

monies paid by consumers for Gardenburger products that would not have 

been paid but for Gardenburger's misrepresentation. 

(Pl.'s Mot. (doc. no. 66) at 26.) "The difference between what the plaintiff paid and the 

value of what the plaintiff received is a proper measure of restitution" under California 

consumer protection statutes. In re Vioxx Class Cases, 180 Cal. App. 4th 116, 131 

(2009); Colgan v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 135 Cal. App. 4th 663, 694 (2006). The 

same measure applies to express warranty damages under California Uniform 

Commercial Code. See Cal. Comm. Code §§ 2714(2), 2721. Plaintiff refers to this 

measure of damages as the "price premium."1 (Pl.'s Mot. at 26.) 

Plaintiff proposes to calculate damages using a conjoint analysis. She submitted a 

report by her marketing and consumer behavior expert, Dr. Elizabeth Howlett, to support 

of the position that damages can be calculated on a classwide basis and show how the 

proposed analysis would be conducted. (See Howlett Report (doc. no. 66-3).) 

Conjoint analysis is a quantitative consumer preference analysis used to measure 

the value consumers assign to various product attributes, including a representation that 

the product is "natural." (Howlett Report at 8.) This method has been used in marketing 

research since the 1970s. (Id.) In Dr. Howlett's opinion, it is possible "to use the conjoint 

analysis to quantify the percentage of the price premium for the 'Made With Natural 

Ingredients' label on Gardenburgers on a classwide basis." (Id. at 4.) 

Dr. Howlett proposes to use the choice-based variant of the conjoint analysis. 

(Howlett Report at 9.) In a choice-based conjoint analysis, survey participants are 

presented with sets of products. (Id.) Each product in the set is described by specific 

 

1 Plaintiff indicates that she also seeks statutory damages under the Consumer Legal 

Remedies Act, disgorgement of Defendant's profits, and punitive damages. (Pl.'s Mot. at 

13, 28-29.) These remedies are mentioned in a cursory manner, without elaboration, and 

without evidentiary support. Accordingly, Plaintiff has not met her burden with respect 

to these additional remedies.

Case 3:14-cv-02449-L-MDD Document 88 Filed 03/23/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 7
5

14-cv-2449-L-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

attributes being tested, such as, for example, whether a flat screen TV is high-definition, 

the type of speakers, and the speed of the video card. (Id. at 9-10.) The participants are 

asked which product in the set, i.e., which combination of attributes, they prefer. (Id. at 

10.) After making the selection, the participants are presented with another set of 

products in the same category, i.e., flat screen TVs, with different combinations of 

attributes, and are again asked which one they prefer. (Id.) After repeating the process 

multiple times with all the survey participants, "the mathematical algorithms underlying 

the conjoint analysis provide data about the relative importance weights of the tested 

attributes (which, when expressed as percentages, total to 100%)." (Id.) 

Based on her extensive research of consumer response to, and interpretations of, 

food labels, Dr. Howlett proposes to select attributes which reflect realistic consumer 

choices for the product under study, and which comply with the conjoint survey design 

principles. (See Howlett Report at 11-12.) Before conducting the survey, she proposes to 

confirm the validity of her product attribute selections by conducting focus groups and a 

series of pilot tests. (Id. at 13.) 

Defendant argues that Dr. Howlett's proposed analysis is incapable of calculating 

the price premium, and therefore cannot comply with Comcast. As stated in the report, 

the results of Dr. Howlett's survey will show the relative importance consumers ascribe to 

the surveyed Gardenburger attributes, including the representation that they were "made 

with natural ingredients." (Howlett Report at 10.) It is not apparent from the report how 

Dr. Howlett would translate these results to a price premium. Defendant contends that 

the conjoint analysis measures only the consumers' willingness to pay for a particular 

attribute, but does not consider the supply-side and market-based factors which influence

product price, such as production costs, availability of competitor products, etc. (Opp'n 

(doc. no. 77) at 13-15 (citing Wilcox Decl. (doc. no. 77-1) at 8-9.) 

Plaintiff counters that conjoint analysis withstood a similar challenge in In re 

ConAgra Foods, Inc., 90 F. Supp. 3d 919 (C.D. Cal. 2015), aff'd Briseno v. ConAgra 

Foods, Inc., 674 Fed. Appx. 654 (9th Cir. 2017). In ConAgra, Dr. Howlett's proposed

Case 3:14-cv-02449-L-MDD Document 88 Filed 03/23/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 7
6

14-cv-2449-L-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

conjoint analysis was combined with a hedonic regression analysis conducted by another 

expert as follows:

Plaintiffs propose to measure the classwide price premium attributable to 

their theory of liability using two steps: First, Plaintiffs will use hedonic 

regression analysis to calculate the price premium attributable to the “100% 

Natural” label; second, they will use conjoint analysis to segregate the 

portion of that premium attributable to a “no-GMO” understanding of the 

label.

Briseno, 674 Fed. Appx. at 657. To arrive at classwide damages, the price premium 

calculated by the first expert was multiplied by the percentage derived from Dr. Howlett's 

conjoint analysis. In re ConAgra, 90 F. Supp. 3d at 1025. This approach was affirmed 

notwithstanding the same challenge Defendant presents here. Id. at 1026 (contention that

conjoint analysis by itself does not account for supply and market factors which influence 

price, and therefore also the price premium); aff'd Briseno, 674 Fed. Appx. at 657. 

As in ConAgra, here Dr. Howlett proposes to "quantify the percentage of the price 

premium." (Howlett Report at 4 (emphasis added).) However, unlike in ConAgra, 

Plaintiff provides no indication how she intends to prove the price premium to which Dr. 

Howlett's percentage would be applied to arrive at the amount of damages. Plaintiff has 

not proposed to conduct a hedonic regression or any other type of analysis to calculate 

the price premium, which would account for the supply and market factors that influence 

price. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to carry her burden under Rule 23(b)(3) to show 

that her proposed method of calculating damages on a classwide basis will in fact 

measure damages attributable to her theory of liability. See Comcast, 569 U.S. at 35.

III. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff's motion for class certification is denied without prejudice. If Plaintiff 

wishes to file another class certification motion supported with adequate proof, she must

/ / / / /

Case 3:14-cv-02449-L-MDD Document 88 Filed 03/23/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 7
7

14-cv-2449-L-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

file it no later than 60 days after this Order is filed. The parties are expected to cooperate 

and expedite any additional discovery which may have to be conducted for this purpose.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 23, 2019

Case 3:14-cv-02449-L-MDD Document 88 Filed 03/23/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 7