Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01935/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01935-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

- 1 - 09cv1935

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID JOHNS, on behalf of himself and all

others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 09CV1935 DMS (JMA)

ORDER: (1) GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

STRIKE, AND (2)DENYING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS

[Docs. 23-24]

vs.

BAYER CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Pending before the Court are Defendants’ motion to strike portions of Plaintiffs’ Second

Amended Complaint (“SAC”), and Defendants’ motion to dismiss the SAC. For the reasonsset forth

below, Defendants’ motion to strike is granted in part and denied in part, and Defendants’ motion to

dismiss is denied.

I.

BACKGROUND

Defendants Bayer Corporation and Bayer Healthcare, LLC, manufacture, distribute, and sell

One A Day Men’s 50+ Advantage (“Men’s 50+”) and One A Day Men’s Health Formula (“Men’s

Health”) vitamin products. (SAC ¶ 1.) Plaintiffs David Johns and Marc Bordman filed a putative

class action alleging that Defendants misrepresented on product packaging and in television

commercials that one of the products’ key ingredients, selenium, has the ability to reduce the risk of

Case 3:09-cv-01935-AJB-DHB Document 35 Filed 06/24/10 Page 1 of 8
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

- 2 - 09cv1935

prostate cancer in men. (Id. at ¶ 2.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants promoted the health benefits of

selenium, but that selenium does not in fact prevent or reduce the risk of prostate cancer and may

actually be harmful. (Id. at ¶¶ 14-22.) Plaintiffs cite to several scientific studies to support their

claims that selenium does not promote prostate health and may increase the risk of diabetes. (Id. at

¶¶ 23-45.)

Plaintiff Johns purchased one bottle of Men’s Health in July 2009 for approximately $8.00.

(Id. at ¶ 50.) Plaintiff Bordman purchased several bottles of Men’s 50+ and paid retail price for each

bottle. (Id. at ¶ 54.) Both Plaintiffs allege they learned of Defendants’ claims regarding selenium

through television commercials and the product packaging, and relied on those statements in making

their purchasing decisions. (Id. at ¶¶ 51, 55.) Plaintiffs seek to bring a class action on behalf of “all

persons in the United States or, alternatively, all California residents who until the date notice is

disseminated purchased One a Day Men’s 50+ Advantage or One a Day Men’s Health Formula.” (Id.

at ¶ 58.) 

Plaintiffs allege claims for: (1) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, California

Business & Professions Code § 17200 (“UCL”), and (2) violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies

Act, California Civil Code § 1750 (“CLRA”). Plaintiffs filed the SAC on March 11, 2010, after this

Court granted in part Defendants’ motion to strike and granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss

Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (Docs. 21 & 22.) Defendants filed the instant motions

on March 29, 2010. (Docs. 23 & 24.) Plaintiff filed an opposition to each motion, and Defendants

filed a reply. (Docs. 27-30.)

II.

DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Strike

1. Paragraphs 22-46

In the FAC, Plaintiffs’ claims that selenium does not support prostate health and may in fact

be harmful relied solely on allegations taken from a letter written by an interest group, the Center for

Science in the Public Interest (“CSPI”). The Court struck Plaintiffs’ allegations because Plaintiffs had

failed to independently investigate the claims and could not simply lift the allegations from the CSPI

Case 3:09-cv-01935-AJB-DHB Document 35 Filed 06/24/10 Page 2 of 8
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

 Defendants’ request for judicial notice is granted. 1

- 3 - 09cv1935

letter. (Doc. 21 at 4-5.) 

Defendants argue that the allegations in the SAC suffer the same deficiencies because

paragraphs 22-46 of the SAC are taken directly from another complaint filed in a different district,

McKinney v. Bayer Corp., Case No. 1:10-cv-00224 (N.D. Ohio 2010). Plaintiffs concede they have 1

used similar allegations to those in McKinney. (Syverson Decl. ¶ 5.) Nonetheless, Plaintiffs argue the

Court should not strike the allegations because Plaintiffs have conducted their own independent factual

investigation.

Attorneys have a non-delegable duty to make a reasonable inquiry into whether the factual

contentions made in a complaint have evidentiary support. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 11(b); In re Connectics,

542 F. Supp. 2d 996, 1005-06 (N.D. Cal. 2008). Here, Plaintiffs have made such an inquiry. The SAC

is signed by attorney Patricia Syverson, who filed a declaration stating that she has reviewed publicly

available information regarding the studies mentioned in the SAC in determining that there is a factual

basis for the allegations. (Syverson Decl. ¶ 3.) Indeed, the SAC itself provides citations to the sources

of Plaintiffs’ information.

The cases cited by Defendants are distinguishable. In In re Connectics, 542 F. Supp. 2d at

1006, which this Court discussed in its previous Order, the court struck allegations lifted from an SEC

complaint. There, however, the plaintiffs had not conducted an independent investigation and did not

inform the court of any other sources of information on which they relied. Id. Here, Plaintiffs contend

they have conducted an independent investigation and have provided the sources for publicly available

information supporting their claims. In Geinko v. Padda, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3316 (N.D. Ill. Feb.

26, 2002), in which the court warned that relying on other complaints would create a loophole in Rule

11 whereby “two plaintiffs could file separate actions each relying on the allegations in the other’s

complaint and both would state a claim for fraud,” the court noted that the plaintiffs had failed to

contact the attorneys in the other cases to discuss the claims. Here, Plaintiffs contacted the attorney

in McKinney to discuss the basis for his claims, and indeed, that attorney has made an appearance in

this case. The similarity in the two complaints is inevitable given that the same conduct underlies both

cases. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to strike paragraphs 22-46 is denied.

Case 3:09-cv-01935-AJB-DHB Document 35 Filed 06/24/10 Page 3 of 8
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

- 4 - 09cv1935

2. Paragraph 42

Paragraph 42 of the SAC alleges that Defendants “have been caught in illegal behavior many

times in the past” and cites five incidents which allegedly support this statement. Defendants move

to strike this paragraph on the grounds that the previous incidents involve products and acts not at

issue in this matter. Plaintiffs contend the previous matters give plausibility to Plaintiffs’ claims and

that it supports Plaintiffs’ claims for punitive damages. The previous matters referenced, however,

involve either unrelated conduct, or products not at issue here. To the extent evidence of Defendants’

previous conduct may be relevant to Plaintiffs’ punitive damages claims, the issue can be addressed

at a later stage of the proceedings. See Strassman v. Fresh Choice, Inc., 1995 WL 743728, *17 (N.D.

Cal. Dec. 7, 1995) (“[A]llegations regarding prior acts are unnecessary at the pleading stage.”).

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to strike paragraph 42 is granted. 

B. Motion to Dismiss

Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims on the grounds that Plaintiffs lack standing to

pursue their claims and Plaintiffs have failed to adequately plead their claims.

1. Legal Standard

In two recent opinions, the Supreme Court established a more stringent standard of review for

12(b)(6) motions. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). To survive a motion to dismiss under this new standard, “a complaint

must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim for relief that is plausible on

its face.’” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “A claim has facial plausibility

when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the

defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “Determining

whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will ... be a context-specific task that requires

the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. at 1950 (citing Iqbal

v. Hasty, 490 F.3d 143, 157-58 (2d Cir. 2007)). The reviewing court must therefore “identify the

allegations in the complaint that are not entitled to the assumption of truth” and evaluate “the factual

allegations in [the] complaint to determine if they plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief.” Id. at

1951. 

Case 3:09-cv-01935-AJB-DHB Document 35 Filed 06/24/10 Page 4 of 8
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

- 5 - 09cv1935

2. Standing

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs do not have standing to pursue claims based on television

advertisements or based on Defendants’ failure to warn of an alleged risk of diabetes. As discussed

in this Court’s previous Order, to have standing under the UCL, as well as to serve as a class

representative, a plaintiff must plead and prove that he or she “has suffered injury in fact and has lost

money or property as a result of” a defendant’s unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices. Cal.

Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17203-04. To have standing under the CLRA, a plaintiff must allege he or she

was damaged by an alleged unlawful practice. Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., 45 Cal. 4th 634, 638

(2009.)

a. Television Advertisements

This Court previouslyheld that Plaintiff Johns did not have standing under the UCL and CLRA

to pursue claims regarding the Men’s 50+ multivitamin because he did not purchase that product; he

purchased only Men’s Health. Further, Plaintiff did not have standing to pursue claims based on

Defendants’ radio, television or internet advertisements because he never alleged that he was exposed

to such advertisements; rather, his purchasing decision was based on representations on the product

packaging.

In the SAC, Plaintiffs cure these defects. Plaintiff Bordman alleges he purchased several

bottles of Men’s 50+, and both Plaintiffs allege they saw and relied on Defendants’ television

commercials. (SAC ¶¶ 20, 51, 54-55.) Defendants’ argument that Plaintiffs fail to allege they “relied

on the television advertisements in making their purchasing decisions” is unavailing. Plaintiffs allege

that the claims regarding selenium on both the product packaging and the television commercials were

a material factor in their decision to purchase and consume Defendants’ products. (SAC ¶¶ 52, 56.)

Accordingly, Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged standing to pursue these claims.

b. Failure to Warn

Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs do not have standing under the UCL or CLRA to sue for

Defendants’ alleged failure to warn of the increased risk of diabetes because Plaintiffs do not allege

reliance or injury based on a failure to warn. Plaintiffs, however, have alleged they relied on the

claims regarding selenium and that these claims are deceptive, in part, due to the alleged increased risk

Case 3:09-cv-01935-AJB-DHB Document 35 Filed 06/24/10 Page 5 of 8
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

 The Court declines to reconsider its previous holding that Rule 9(b) does not apply to 2

Plaintiffs’ claims. 

- 6 - 09cv1935

of diabetes associated with selenium. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged standing to

pursue these claims.

3. Sufficiency of the Allegations2

Defendants contend that Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged that Defendants’ statements

were false or likelyto deceive consumers. Specifically, Defendants contend the allegations in the SAC

mischaracterize Defendants’ statements, the scientific studies do not show Defendants’ claims were

false, and Plaintiffs do not show the selenium in Defendants’ products increases the risk for diabetes.

a. Mischaracterization of Defendants’ Statements

The SAC alleges Defendants advertised their products as promoting and supporting prostate

health and reducing the risk of prostate cancer because one of its key ingredients, selenium, has been

scientifically shown to reduce the risk of prostate cancer. (SAC ¶ 2.) Plaintiffs also allege that

Defendants’ advertising indicates that selenium has the ability to mitigate, prevent, treat, and/or cure

prostate cancer. (Id. at ¶ 13.) Defendants contend these allegations misrepresent Defendants’

advertisements because the statements regarding selenium are qualified by language such as “emerging

research suggests” and are accompanied by disclaimers, such as “This statement has not been

evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.” Further, Defendants argue its products never state

that selenium can prevent prostate cancer, and indeed, the products contain a disclaimer stating “This

product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.”

Claims under the UCL are governed by the reasonable consumer test. Williams v. Gerber

Products, Co., 552 F.3d 934, 938 (9th Cir. 2008). The law prohibits “not only advertising which is

false, but also advertising which[,] although true, is either actually misleading or which has a capacity,

likelihood or tendency to deceive or confuse the public.” Id. (quotations omitted). Although a court

may review the advertising itself on a motion to dismiss, “whether a business practice is deceptive will

usually be a question of fact not appropriate for decision on demurrer.” Id. 

Here, for example, the front of the Men’s Health packaging states “Supports prostate health”

with an asterisk leading a consumer to a disclaimer on the back that the statement has not been

evaluated by the FDA. (SAC ¶¶ 15-16; RJN Ex. B.) The back of the packaging contains further

Case 3:09-cv-01935-AJB-DHB Document 35 Filed 06/24/10 Page 6 of 8
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

- 7 - 09cv1935

statements about the health benefits of selenium, such as “Selenium may reduce the risk of certain

cancers.” While there are disclaimers and qualifying language, determining whether a reasonable

consumer would be deceived is inappropriate at this stage of the litigation. Further, Plaintiffs allege

deceptive advertising in Defendants’ television commercials, and the full content of those

advertisements are not before the Court. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss on these grounds

is denied. 

b. Falsity

Defendants argue that the studies referenced in the SAC do not show the statements made by

Defendants were false before the data was published or that they became false after the data was

published. Plaintiffs argue that Defendants’ statements were false or misleading at all times.

Plaintiffs adequately allege falsity. The SAC details the statements made by Defendants

regarding selenium and why Plaintiffs contend the statements are false. (SAC ¶¶ 2, 15-20, 22-41.)

The SAC references publications from 2003 and 2007 through 2009 that indicate selenium does not

support prostate health and may increase diabetes, and gives ample notice to Defendants to be able to

defend against the claims. (SAC ¶¶ 24-40.) Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss on this

ground is denied.

c. Risk of Diabetes

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ claims regarding the increased risk of diabetes fail because

Defendants’ products have a different dose of selenium from that used in the studies and Plaintiffs do

not allege they have any of the risk factors that were associated with the increased risk of diabetes.

Plaintiffs, however, have sufficiently alleged that Defendants’ claims regarding the positive benefits

of selenium are rendered false or misleading because selenium may in fact be harmful. (SAC ¶ 2.)

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss on this ground is denied.

III.

CONCLUSION

For the reasonsstated above, Defendants’ motion to strike is granted in part and denied in part.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied.

/ / /

Case 3:09-cv-01935-AJB-DHB Document 35 Filed 06/24/10 Page 7 of 8
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

- 8 - 09cv1935

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 24, 2010

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01935-AJB-DHB Document 35 Filed 06/24/10 Page 8 of 8