Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01935/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01935-5/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID JOHNS, an Individual and MARC

BORDMAN, an Individual, on Behalf of

Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated

and the General Public,

Plaintiff,

v.

BAYER CORPORATION, an Indiana

Corporation and BAYER HEALTHCARE,

LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.09cv1935 AJB (DHB)

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR

APPROVAL OF CLASS NOTICE PLAN

(Doc. No. 216)

On January 28, 2013, Plaintiffs David Johns and Marc Bondman (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendants

Bayer Corporation and Bayer Healthcare, LLC (“Bayer” or “Defendants”) filed a joint motion for

approval of the class notice plan. (Doc. No. 216.) After a careful consideration of the parties joint

motion, the proposed short form notice, the proposed long form notice, and the notice plan, the Court

finds the notice is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of due process and Rule 23. Accordingly, the

Court GRANTS the parties joint motion and approves the class notice plan.

BACKGROUND

This is a consumer class action alleging that Bayer violated California’s Unfair Competition Law

(“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof.Code § 17200 et seq., and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”),

Cal. Civ.Code § 1750 et seq., by making false and/or deceptive advertising claims regarding prostate

1 09cv1935 AJB (DHB)

Case 3:09-cv-01935-AJB-DHB Document 217 Filed 02/01/13 Page 1 of 4
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

health benefits in two of Bayer’s men’s One-A-Day vitamin products (the “Vitamin Product”).1 On

February 3, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification under Rule 23(b)(3), and

certified a class of all persons who purchased the Vitamins Products in the State of California, from the

date the Vitamin Products were first sold in California with the “prostate health” claims, until May 31,

2010 when the prostate statements were removed from the Vitamin Products. (Doc. No. 105.)

Accordingly, the Court certified two classes: 1) all persons who purchased One-A-Day Men’s Health

Formula from March 2002 to May 31, 2010; and 2) all persons who purchased One-A-Day Men’s 50+

Advantage from April 2007 to May, 31, 2010 (collectively, “Class members”).

DISCUSSION

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(B), for classes certified under Rule

23(b)(3), the Court must direct to class members “the best notice practicable under the circumstances,

including individual notice to all members who can be identified through reasonable effort.” The notice

must “clearly and concisely state in plain, easily understood language:” (i) the nature of the action; (ii)

the definition of the class certified; (iii) the class claims, issues or defenses; (iv) that a class member

may enter an appearance through an attorney if the member so desires; (v) that the court will exclude

from the class any member who requests exclusion; (vi) the time and manner for requesting exclusion;

and (vii) the binding effect of a class judgment on members under Rule 23(c)(3). 

The parties agree that Bayer does not possess the names and contact information of the Class

members. Accordingly, the parties propose notice should be disseminated to the Class by way of online

publication, a dedicated website, and other means of outreach. To facilitate and administer the proposed

notice, Plaintiffs have secured the Garden City Group, Inc. (“GCG”), a preeminent firm that specializes

in the administration of class action notice programs. (Doc. No. 216, Ex. C, Notice Plan.) The notice

plan proposed by GCG will generate an estimated 4,000,000 impressions. The notice will then be

publicized in approximately 65 local newspaper and television websites throughout California using a

clear and concise Internet banner advertisement that will rotate for one-month among many widely read

1

 The Vitamin products at issue include One-A-Day Men’s Health Formula and One-A-Day

Men’s 50+ Advantage. 

2 09cv1935 AJB (DHB)

Case 3:09-cv-01935-AJB-DHB Document 217 Filed 02/01/13 Page 2 of 4
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

and respected local news and information websites throughout California. The banner advertisement

will appear as follows:

To reach the large Hispanic population in California, the banner advertisement will also be circulated

throughout Univision.com’s local news websites and more than 100 online publishers

affiliated with the Univision Partner Group. 

In addition to the banner advertisement, GCG will create an informational website with the URL

address, www.californiamensvitaminslawsuit.com. The website will be maintained by GCG during the

pendency of the notice period and the banner advisement will be linked to the website so that individuals who click the banner will be automatically re-directed to the website. The website will display the

short form notice, the long form notice, a copy of the operative complaint, and the Court’s order

granting Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. (Doc. No. 216, Ex. A short form notice, Ex. B. Long

form notice.) 

Given the facts and circumstances of the instant case, including the parties inability to locate the

names and contact information of Class members, the Court finds the proposed notice sufficient. 

Specifically, the form and information contained within the notice is based on and consistent with the

Federal Judicial Center’s notices, and satisfy the requirements of Rule 23 and due process. See, e.g.,

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Advisory Committee Notes (2003) (“The Federal Judicial Center has created

illustrative clear-notice forms that provide a helpful starting point for actions similar to those described

in the forms.”); accord In re Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Wage and Hour Litig., 2008 WL 1990806, at *7

(N.D. Cal. May 05, 2008); Flanagan v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2007 WL 3085903, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 18,

2007) (“We begin by adopting, generally, defendant’s template, since it is taken directly from the

Federal Justice Center’s archive of sample Notice forms.”); Mirfasihi v. Fleet Mortg. Corp., 356 F.3d

781, 786 (7th Cir. 2004) (holding that publication of notice in a national newspaper of wide circulation,

plus an online publication, constitutes sufficient notice by publication).

3 09cv1935 AJB (DHB)

Case 3:09-cv-01935-AJB-DHB Document 217 Filed 02/01/13 Page 3 of 4
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

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the Court approves the parties joint motion for

approval of the Class Notice Plan. (Doc. No. 216.) 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 1, 2013 

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

4 09cv1935 AJB (DHB)

Case 3:09-cv-01935-AJB-DHB Document 217 Filed 02/01/13 Page 4 of 4