Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00376/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00376-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332fr Diversity-Fraud

---

– 1 – 12cv376

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

KIM ALLEN, LAINIE RIDEOUT 

and KATHLEEN HAIRSTON, on 

behalf of themselves, all others 

similarly situated, and the general 

public,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SIMILASAN CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 12-cv-376-BAS-JLB

ORDER:

(1) DENYING JOINT MOTION 

FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF 

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

(ECF No. 216), AND

(2) DENYING AS MOOT 

MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’

FEES (ECF No. 211)

Plaintiffs and Defendant Similasan have filed a Joint Motion for Final

Approval of Settlement Agreement [ECF No. 216] and Plaintiffs have filed a 

Motion, unopposed by Similasan, for attorneys’ fees, costs and incentive awards. 

[ECF No. 211.] Because the Court determines ultimately that the proposed 

settlement agreement is not fair, adequate or reasonable for unnamed class 

members, the Court DENIES the Joint Motion for Final Approval [ECF No. 216] 

and, therefore DENIES AS MOOT the Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs and 

Incentive Awards. [ECF No 211.]

Case 3:12-cv-00376-BAS-JLB Document 223 Filed 08/09/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of

 10
– 2 – 12cv376

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

I. BACKGROUND

On behalf of a California and a Florida1class, Plaintiffs filed a class action 

complaint alleging that Similasan engaged in false or deceptive labeling of its 

homeopathic products. [Third Amended Complaint, ECF No. 58 (“TAC”).] 

Plaintiffs alleged that most consumers who purchase homeopathic drugs “are 

unaware of homeopathic dilution principles” and do not understand that these drugs 

have undergone no scrutiny by the FDA. [TAC ¶¶ 22, 23.] Thus class members 

were and are likely to be deceived by Similasan’s advertising and marketing 

practices. [TAC ¶127.]

According to the TAC, although other homeopathic drug manufacturers have 

voluntarily agreed to implement an FDA disclaimer indicating on their labels that 

“The FDA has not determined that this product is safe, effective, and not 

misbranded for its intended use,” along with additional disclaimers explaining 

homeopathic dilution, Similasan has not implemented these disclaimers. [TAC ¶¶ 

26-27, 84, 136.] Hence, the Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief on behalf of the class. 

[TAC ¶136.] Plaintiffs also sought disgorgement, restitution of all monies from the 

sale of the homeopathic products, return of the purchase price of products, damages 

and punitive damages. [TAC ¶¶71, 85, 92, 96.]

This Court granted in part and denied in part Similasan’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment. [ECF No. 142.] The Court limited the time period of recovery 

and dismissed the claims for injunctive relief as to the named Plaintiffs only. [Id.] 

The Court further granted in part Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, certifying 

two classes, “all purchasers of Similasan Corp. homeopathic Products in 

California...” with respect to Nasal Allergy Relief or Sinus Relief (first class) and 

Allergy Eye Relief, Earache Relief, Dry Eye Relief and Pink Eye Relief (second 

class). [ECF No. 143.] The Court approved Plaintiffs’ proposal for notice on 

 

1 Plaintiff Allen withdrew as a named plaintiff, and, as she was the only named plaintiff from 

Florida, Plaintiffs ultimately dismissed claims involving the Florida class [ECF No. 69].

Case 3:12-cv-00376-BAS-JLB Document 223 Filed 08/09/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of

 10
– 3 – 12cv376

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

Similasan’s website, along with advertisements posted in California editions of 

“U.S. Today,” in the “San Diego Union-Tribune” and on Facebook. [Id.]

Similasan filed a Motion to Decertify the class, arguing that Plaintiffs would 

not be able to prove materiality or falsity, and a Motion for Partial Summary 

Judgment, requesting in part that the Court extend its Order dismissing claims for 

injunctive relief to the entire class. [ECF Nos. 164, 171.] Plaintiffs’ counsel 

responded to these Motions. [ECF Nos. 173, 175.] Trial was scheduled to begin 

March 29, 2016. On January 26, 2016, the parties notified the Court it had reached 

a settlement which was filed on March 31, 2016. [ECF Nos. 196, 202.] 

II. THE SETTLEMENT

The Settlement Agreement jointly proposes that this Court certify a class 

defined as:

All purchasers of all Similasan Corporation homeopathic Products 

nationwide for personal or household use and not for resale, as listed in 

Exhibit A to this Agreement [including 41 Similasan products] from 

February 10, 2008 to the present.

[ECF No. 202-4 §2.2.] Thus, the proposed Settlement greatly expands the class 

beyond what was alleged in the TAC and beyond what was certified by this Court to 

include a nationwide class involving many more Similasan products.

The Settlement provides for injunctive relief only, including a disclaimer on 

all Similasan product labels that “These statements are based upon traditional 

homeopathic principles. They have not been reviewed by the Food and Drug 

Administration.” Similasan agrees to make these label changes no later than twelve 

months after the effective date of the Settlement Agreement. [ECF No. 202-4 

§5.1.4.] The Settlement Agreement also provides that Similasan shall maintain a 

homeopathic dilution explanation web page or portion thereof on all websites that it 

owns or operates regarding the Products. The explanation shall conform to the 

explanations provided by HPUS (a private organization of homeopaths), and the 

web pages shall include a link to the FDA web site’s Compliance Policy Guide 

Case 3:12-cv-00376-BAS-JLB Document 223 Filed 08/09/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of

 10
– 4 – 12cv376

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

§400.400. [ECF No. 202-4 §5.1.3.] The Settlement Agreement includes no 

monetary relief for unnamed class members.

In exchange for the Settlement Agreement, all class members release:

With the exception of claims for personal injury, any and all claims, 

demands, rights, suits, liabilities and causes of action of every nature 

and description whatsoever known or unknown, matured or unmatured, 

at law or in equity, existing under federal and/or state law including 

without limitation a waiver of all rights under Section 1542 of the 

California Civil Code, that [any class member] has or may have against 

[Similasan or any related parties] arising out of in connection with or 

related in any way, directly or indirectly, to Defendant’s advertising, 

marketing, manufacturing, packaging, labeling, promotion, sale, or 

distribution of the Products, that have been brought, could have been 

brought, or are currently pending, by any Class member against 

[Similasan or related party], in any forum in the United States 

(including territories and Puerto Rico).

[Id. §2.22.] All Class members acknowledge “that they have been informed by their 

legal counsel . . . of Section 1542 of the California Civil Code, and that they 

expressly waive and relinquish any rights or benefits available to them under this 

statute.” [Id. §7.3.] Although there is a provision for any class member to “opt 

out,” in light of the fact that the Settlement Agreement provides only injunctive 

relief to the unnamed class members, apparently this provision allows a class 

member to opt out only of the release provisions. [Id. §9.7.1.]

Plaintiffs will request $2,500 as an incentive award for each named Plaintiff, 

which Similasan agrees not to contest. [Id. §10.1.] And Plaintiffs will request no 

more than $575,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs, including the cost of Notice and 

any notice administration. [Id.] Similasan agrees not to contest the amount of 

attorneys’ fees and costs to the extent the request does not exceed $550,000. [Id.]

Notice of the Settlement was provided via a Similasan website and in four 

weekly publications in the “San Diego Union Tribune” and in “USA Today”. [ECF 

No. 202-4, §§ 6.2, 6.4, Exh. B-D.] CAFA notice was also served on appropriate 

federal and state officials. [Id. §6.3.] The Notice included a statement that “If you 

Case 3:12-cv-00376-BAS-JLB Document 223 Filed 08/09/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of

 10
– 5 – 12cv376

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

do not want to be bound by the settlement, you must send a letter to the Claims 

Administrator . . . requesting to be excluded[.] If you exclude yourself, you cannot 

receive a benefit from this settlement[.]”

2

[Id. Exh. C.]

Mr. Frank Bednarz, who became a class member by purchasing a Similasan 

product two days before the deadline to object, and after preliminary approval of the 

settlement and notice to all class members had been disseminated, is the sole 

objector to the settlement. [ECF No. 215.] However, eight Attorneys General (of 

Arizona, Arkansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada, Texas and Wyoming) 

have also filed an amicus curiae brief urging the Court to reject the Proposed 

Settlement. [ECF No. 219.]

III. STATEMENT OF THE LAW

Under Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a proposal to 

settle a class action that binds class members requires the court to find that the 

settlement “is fair, reasonable and adequate.” The Court has an independent duty to 

protect the interests of absent class members. Silber v. Mabon, 957 F.2d 697, 701 

(9th Cir. 1992); Grant v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 823 F.2d 20, 23 (2d Cir. 1987) 

(district court has an obligation to protect the interests of the “silent majority”).

In class action settlements, there is always the danger that the named plaintiffs 

and counsel will bargain away the interests of the unnamed class members in order 

to maximize their own recovery. In re Dry Pampers Litig., 724 F.3d 713, 715 (6th

Cir. 2013); see also Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 960 (9th Cir. 2003)

(concern is not necessarily with overt misconduct of the negotiators or secret cabals, 

the court must simply assure that the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate to 

all concerned). 

“It is the settlement taken as a whole, rather than the individual component 

 

2 This is a puzzling statement in light of the fact that the only benefit from the settlement for 

unnamed class members was injunctive relief, from which an opting out class member would 

presumably still get a benefit.

Case 3:12-cv-00376-BAS-JLB Document 223 Filed 08/09/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of

 10
– 6 – 12cv376

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

parts, that must be examined for overall fairness.” Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 

F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998). A court may not “delete, modify or substitute 

certain provisions” of the settlement; rather, “[t]he settlement must stand or fall in 

its entirety.” Id.

“[S]ettlement approval that takes place prior to formal class certification 

requires a higher standard of fairness.” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026. Consequently, a 

district court “must be particularly vigilant not only for explicit collusion, but also 

for more subtle signs that class counsel have allowed pursuit of their own selfinterests and that of certain class members to infect the negotiations.” In re 

Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 947 (9th Cir. 2011). Other 

relevant factors to this determination include, among others, “the strength of the 

plaintiffs’ case; the risk, expense, complexity and likely duration of further 

litigation; the risk of maintaining class-action status throughout the trial; the amount 

offered at settlement; the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the 

proceedings; the experience and views of counsel; the presence of a governmental 

participant; and the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement.” 

Hanlon, at 1026; see also Churchill Vill., L.L.C v. Gen. Elec., 361 F.3d 566, 575 

(9th Cir. 2004). “The relative degree of importance to be attached to any particular 

factor will depend upon and be dictated by the nature of the claim(s) advanced, the 

type(s) of relief sought, and the unique facts and circumstances presented by each 

individual case.” Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of the City and Cty. of 

San Francisco, 688 F.2d 615, 625 (9th Cir. 1982).

IV. ANALYSIS

The Court recognizes that this Settlement is the culmination of a hard-fought 

battle over four years resulting in extensive attorney hours and costs. The Court 

further recognizes that Plaintiffs were facing a Motion for Class Decertification and 

a Motion for Summary Judgment, and that Plaintiffs were aware of a recent spate of 

defense verdicts on similar claims relating to homeopathic products. The Court 

Case 3:12-cv-00376-BAS-JLB Document 223 Filed 08/09/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of

 10
– 7 – 12cv376

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

understands that this case was settled on the eve of trial after parties and counsel 

fully understood the strengths and weaknesses of their case. And the Court 

concedes that the extensive experience of Plaintiffs’ counsel militates in favor of 

approving the Settlement.

However, when assessing the Settlement Agreement as a whole, the Court has 

several concerns. First, as pointed out by the Objector and the Attorneys General, 

only the named Plaintiffs and the Attorneys are getting any money out of this 

Settlement. The named Plaintiffs will receive $2,500, well more than they spent on 

the offending products. See In re Dry Pampers Litig., 724 F.3d at 722 (“[W]e 

should be more dubious of incentive payments when they make the class 

representatives whole, or (as here) even more than whole, for in that case the class 

representatives have no reason to care whether the mechanisms available to 

unnamed class members can provide adequate relief.”). 

Additionally, the proposed injunctive relief may only benefit a small number 

of the class members and instead seems to be more tailored to future purchasers. 

See Synfuel Techs., Inc. v. DHL Express (USA), Inc., 463 F.3d 646, 654 (7th Cir. 

2006 (“It is future customers, not plaintiffs in this suit, who will reap most of the 

benefit from these changes.”); In re Dry Pampers Litig., 724 F.3d at 720 (“The 

fairness of the settlement must be evaluated primarily based on how it compensates 

class members—not on whether it provides relief to other people.”) (quotations and 

emphasis omitted). The court has already dismissed injunctive relief claims on 

behalf of the named Plaintiffs since it was highly unlikely they would buy the 

offending products in the future given their allegations that the homeopathic 

products were not and could not ever be effective. [ECF No. 142.] 

Ultimately, however, these factors are not what the Court finds dispositive. 

Attorneys may, after all receive fees and costs for obtaining injunctive relief using a 

lodestar method even if there is no financial recovery for the class. Lilly v. Jamba 

Juice, No. 13-cv-2998-JST, 2015 WL 2062858 at *5 (N.D. Cal. May 4, 2015); Riker 

Case 3:12-cv-00376-BAS-JLB Document 223 Filed 08/09/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of

 10
– 8 – 12cv376

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

v. Gibbons, No. 3:08-cv-115-LRH-VPC, 2010 WL 4366012 (D. Nev. Oct. 28, 

2010); Richardson v. L’Oreal U.S.A., Inc., 951 F. Supp. 2d 104 (D.D.C. 2013). 

Although the Court has not thoroughly scrutinized the attorneys’ fees request in this 

case, the overall amount does not appear unreasonable given the amount of time and 

effort put into the litigation thus far. 

And the Court recognizes that one of the goals of this litigation was to force 

Similasan to change its labels and join other homeopathic drug manufacturers who 

had voluntarily agreed to include an FDA disclaimer on their labels. The Court is 

prepared to accept Plaintiffs’ counsel’s representations at oral argument that 

Similasan has a strong contingency of repeat users, many of whom do not know that 

what they are buying is not FDA approved. Thus, the Court recognizes that this 

Settlement could potentially benefit some members of the class by giving them 

some additional knowledge about what they are buying. See Gallucci v. Boiron, 

Inc., No. 11-cv-2039 JAH(NLS), 2012 WL 5359485 at *10 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 

2012), aff’d 603 F. App’x 535 (“Defendants’ agreements to modify the Products’ 

label and packaging, web site and advertising adequately addresses the claims raised 

in plaintiffs’ complaint and provides significant value to the class.”)

However, ultimately, what tips the balance for the Court and leads it to the 

conclusion that the settlement is not fair, adequate or reasonable, are the broad 

release provisions in the Settlement Agreement. This distinguishes this case from 

many of the other injunctive relief settlements cited by the Plaintiffs. See e.g., Lilly 

v. Jamba Juice, 2015 WL 2062858 (pure injunctive relief but no waiver of class 

members’ individual claims); Kim v. Space Pencil, Inc., No. c-11-03796 LB, 2012 

WL 5948951 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 28, 2012) (only named class members agreed to release 

of all claims, no release was required from unnamed class members); Grant v. 

Capital Mgmt. Servs., L.P., No. 10-cv-2471-WQH (BGS) 2014 WL 888665 (S.D. 

Cal. Mar. 5, 2014) (no release of rights of unnamed class members); Riker, 2010 

WL 4366012 (agreement does not impact individual damages cases class members 

Case 3:12-cv-00376-BAS-JLB Document 223 Filed 08/09/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of

 10
– 9 – 12cv376

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

may bring); Richardson, 951 F. Supp. 2d 104 (class members will retain their right 

to seek damages in individual actions); Crawford v. Equifax Payment Servs., Inc.,

201 F.3d 877 (7th Cir. 2000) (rejecting settlement in part because class members 

lost the right to file a class action in the future, even though class members retained

the right to file for damages via individual action).

When the broad release provisions in this Settlement Agreement are coupled 

with a large broadening of the class description so that now a nationwide class of 

users is releasing its claims instead of a California-only class, it appears that this 

Settlement is crafted to provide protection to Similasan and not to benefit the 

unnamed Plaintiffs. As explained in the Opposition filed by the Attorneys General, 

“all class members are giving up all of their non-personal injury monetary claims 

against Defendant without receiving any compensation different from the public at 

large.”3[ECF No. 219.]

The Court’s concerns about the release provision are compounded by the 

limited notice provided to the class members in this case. Obviously, notice in the 

San Diego Union-Tribune is unlikely to reach the vast majority of class members, 

since this newspaper is by and large a local newspaper only likely to reach residents 

of San Diego. Although class counsel indicates that the notice in “USA Today” was 

likely to reach 4.5 million people who would have purchased a natural product, 

counsel once again confuses the actual class members with the general public. 

Counsel provides no evidence of how many class members who had actually 

purchased a Similasan product are likely to have received notice. The Court 

sincerely doubts that the vast majority of these class members know they are giving 

up rights by remaining in the class. After all, as pointed out by the Objector, if they 

knew and understood the terms of the Settlement Agreement, they would know that 

 

3 Although Class Counsel argues that the Attorneys General did not identify that they had any 

consumers of homeopathic products in their states and insinuates that there may not even be class 

members that exist from these states, this prompts the Court to ask why, then, the class description 

was broadened from a California-only class to a nationwide class?

Case 3:12-cv-00376-BAS-JLB Document 223 Filed 08/09/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of

 10
– 10 – 12cv376

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

they would be better off opting out, since they would receive the same benefits of 

the injunctive relief in the Settlement Agreement but would not be giving up their 

right to sue. The fact that only one member has opted out simply supports the 

Court’s concern that class members have either not seen the notice, or have not 

understood the ramifications of the Settlement Agreement.4 The Court’s concerns 

about Notice are amplified by the fact that the website to provide notice only 

received 136 unique visitors, and the telephone number activated to do the same 

only received 21 unique calls, out of the potentially “tens of thousands” of class 

members. [ECF No. 216-6 ¶¶2-3.]

V. CONCLUSION

Given all of the above, the Court reluctantly DENIES the Joint Motion to 

Approval the Final Class Action Settlement [ECF No. 216] and DENIES AS 

MOOT the Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs and Incentive Fees. [ECF No. 211.] 

The parties are ordered to contact the Magistrate Judge within five days of this 

Order to set further scheduling dates.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 9, 2016

 

4 The confusion is compounded by the Notice which tells class members that they will lose the 

benefit of the Settlement Agreement if they opt out, which is not true. They will still get the only 

benefit available to them: a change in the label.

Case 3:12-cv-00376-BAS-JLB Document 223 Filed 08/09/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of

 10