Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06834/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06834-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHARON MANIER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JUICE BEAUTY, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-06834-RS 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS FOR LACK OF 

JURISDICTION

This is a putative class action filed in this Court under a contention that jurisdiction exists 

pursuant the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) (“CAFA”). Among other 

prerequisites, jurisdiction under CAFA requires that the amount controversy exceed the sum or 

value $5,000,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. § 1332(d)(2). Named plaintiffs Sharon 

Manier and Judith Rodriguez allege that defendant Juice Beauty, Inc. markets and sells a line of 

shampoo, conditioner, and hair mask products under the label “Repairing.” Plaintiffs contend the 

products are falsely represented as having the capability to repair damaged hair, in a literal sense,

beyond anything the products may actually do. See Complaint Para. 3 (“While the Products might

create the temporary illusion that the user’s hair has been repaired, this is indeed an illusion

because nothing in the Product can mend damaged keratin proteins.”) Plaintiffs assert claims 

under consumer protection statutes of each of the fifty states and the District of Columbia.

Case 3:18-cv-06834-RS Document 29 Filed 05/06/19 Page 1 of 3
CASE NO. 18-cv-06834-RS

2

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

Northern District of California

Juice Beauty moves to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction,1contending the amount in 

controversy does not meet the $5 million threshold. Juice Beauty offers evidence, not contested by 

plaintiffs and based on conservative assumptions, that from July 1, 2014, through

October 31, 2018, the total amount consumers paid nationwide to purchase the products at issue

was less than $1,541,390. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the motion is suitable for 

disposition without oral argument, and the hearing set for May 9, 2019 is vacated.

In opposition to dismissal, plaintiffs insist the jurisdictional minimum can be satisfied 

because, they contend, California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) provides for 

statutory damages of $1000 per violation. While plaintiffs go on to offer reasons they believe the 

jurisdictional minimum likely would be satisfied whether or not they can pursue a nationwide 

class under California law, all of their arguments turn on their assertion that the CLRA imposes 

statutory damages of up to $1000 per violation. It does not. Rather, California Civil Code section

1780(a)(1) provides that a consumer who suffers damages as a result of a violation of the CLRA

may seek to recover “[a]ctual damages, but in no case shall the total award of damages in a class

action be less than one thousand dollars ($1,000).” As observed in Jones v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 

No. C 12-01633 CRB, 2014 WL 2702726, at *23 (N.D. Cal. June 13, 2014), that language sets the 

minimum for a total award of damages in a class action at $1,000; it does not provide for an 

statutory award of $1,000 per individual class member.

Nothing in the allegations or evidence suggests that the maximum damages per alleged 

violation, where each sale was in the range of $10 or less per unit, would result in a total amount 

in controversy anywhere remotely near the jurisdictional minimum, given the number of units of 

the products sold to consumers nationwide in the relevant time frame was under 160,000. 

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction must be granted. This ruling is without 

prejudice, of course, to any rights plaintiffs may have to proceed in one or more state courts.

 

1

 Juice Beauty also raises certain challenges to the adequacy of the pleading, in the alternative. 

In view of the conclusion of this order that jurisdiction is lacking, it would not be appropriate to 

reach those issues.

Case 3:18-cv-06834-RS Document 29 Filed 05/06/19 Page 2 of 3
CASE NO. 18-cv-06834-RS

3

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

Northern District of California

Dated: May 6, 2019

______________________________________

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-06834-RS Document 29 Filed 05/06/19 Page 3 of 3