Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-md-02087/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-md-02087-37/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
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

IN RE HYDROXYCUT MARKETING

AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION

Case No. 09md2087 BTM(KSC)

GILBERT LAURELES,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 11cv1325 BTM(KSC)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTION TO

v. DISMISS

IOVATE HEALTH SCIENCES USA,

INC., et al.

Defendants.

Defendants Iovate Health Sciences U.S.A., Inc., Iovate Health Sciences International

Inc., Kerr Investment Holding Corp. f/k/a Iovate Health Sciences Group Inc., Iovate Health

Sciences Research Inc., Iovate HC 2005 Formulations Ltd. n/k/a HDM Formulations Ltd.,

Muscletech Research and Development Inc., General Nutrition Centers, Inc., and GNC

Corporation (collective “Defendants”) have filed a motion to dismiss Count V of the Complaint

and Plaintiff’s claim for exemplary damages. For the reasons discussed below, Defendants’

motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

//

//

//

1 11cv1325 BTM(KSC)

Case 3:09-md-02087-BTM-KSC Document 1532 Filed 08/10/12 Page 1 of 5
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 May 2, 2011, Plaintiff Gilbert Laureles commenced this action in the Northern

District of Texas. Subsequently, the action was transferred to the Southern District of

California as a tag-along action to the In re Hydroxycut Marketing and Sales Practices multidistrict litigation currently pending before the Court. Upon transfer, the case was assigned

a separate civil case number in the Southern District of California (Case No. 11cv1325

BTM(KSC)). 

Plaintiff alleges that he purchased a Hydroxycut product from GNC in Abilene, Texas.

(Compl. ¶ 7.1.) In May 2009 and thereafter, Plaintiff suffered injuries, including, but not

limited to, liver injury and pancreatitis. (Compl. ¶ 7.3.) Plaintiff alleges that the Hydroxycut

product was unsafe because it could cause serious injury to users. (Compl. ¶ 6.12.) Plaintiff

alleges that Defendants failed to inform consumers regarding the heath risks posed by the

Hydroxycut products and made misrepresentations regarding the products’ safety in labeling

and packaging. (Compl. ¶ 6.13.) 

Plaintiff asserts the following claims against Defendants: (1) strict products liability;

(2) negligence; (3) misrepresentation of facts; (4) breach of implied warranty; and (5)

fraudulent concealment.

II. STANDARD

A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) should be granted

only where a plaintiff's complaint lacks a "cognizable legal theory" or sufficient facts to

support a cognizable legal theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th

Cir. 1988). When reviewing a motion to dismiss, the allegations of material fact in plaintiff’s

complaint are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See

Parks Sch. of Bus., Inc. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir. 1995). Although detailed

factual allegations are not required, factual allegations “must be enough to raise a right to

relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). “A

plaintiff’s obligation to prove the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than

2 11cv1325 BTM(KSC)

Case 3:09-md-02087-BTM-KSC Document 1532 Filed 08/10/12 Page 2 of 5
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

labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will

not do.” Id. “[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the

mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged - but it has not show[n] that the

pleader is entitled to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 565 U.S. 662, 679 (2009) (internal quotation

marks omitted). Only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief will survive a motion

to dismiss. Id.

III. DISCUSSION

Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff’s fraudulent concealment claim as well as

Plaintiff’s claim for exemplary damages. 

Plaintiff represents that he does not oppose the dismissal of his fraudulent

concealment claim. Therefore, the Court grants Defendants’ motion as to Count V.

Defendants also move to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim for exemplary damages. In

Paragraphs 15.1 and 15.2 of the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants should be

punished for their actions through the imposition of punitive damages. According to Plaintiff,

“the conduct of Defendants involved either deliberate or purposeful injury to him or actual

subjective awareness that serious injury was highly probable, and that such conduct

objectively involved an extreme degree of risk or serious injury to him. Said malice or gross

negligence was a proximate cause of the injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiff as set

out herein.” (Compl. ¶ 15.2.)

Defendants contend that Plaintiff has failed to set forth factual allegations supporting

his claim for exemplary damages. Under Texas law, exemplary damages may be awarded

if the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the harm suffered by the plaintiff

results from fraud, malice, or gross negligence.1

 Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §

1

 Because this case was originally filed in Texas, this Court applies the choice of law

rules of Texas. See In re Air Crash at Detroit Metropolitan Airport, 791 F. Supp. 1204, 1232

(E.D. Mich 1992). Under Texas law, the law of the state of the injury is applicable unless

another state has a more significant relationship to the parties and issues). Enterprise Prod.

Partners, LP v. Mitchell, 340 S.W.3d 476, 480 (Tex. App. 2011). It appears that Plaintiff’s

injuries occurred in Texas, and there has been no showing that another state has a more

significant relationship to the parties. Therefore, the Court applies Texas law.

3 11cv1325 BTM(KSC)

Case 3:09-md-02087-BTM-KSC Document 1532 Filed 08/10/12 Page 3 of 5
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

41.003. “Gross negligence” is defined as an act or omission:

(A) which when viewed objectively from the standpoint of the actor at the time

of its occurrence involves an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability

and magnitude of the potential harm to others; and 

(B) of which the actor has actual, subjective awareness of the risk involved, but

nevertheless proceeds with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or

welfare of others.

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 41. The “extreme degree of risk” prong is satisfied by 

“the likelihood of serious injury” to the plaintiff. Transportation Ins. Co. v. Moriel, 879 S.W.2d

10, 22 (Tex. 1994). 

 Malice exists where the defendant’s conduct was “willfully committed with ill will, evil

motive, or gross indifference or reckless disregard for the rights of others.” Missouri Pacific

R.R. Co. v. Lemon, 861 S.W.2d 501, 517 (Tex. App.1993). In order to establish malice, “a

plaintiff need not prove the defendant acted with personal spite, but may simply prove the

defendant committed negligent acts in reckless disregard of another’s rights and with

indifference as to whether that party would be injured.” Id.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to support a plausible claim

for exemplary damages. Plaintiff alleges that after the Hydroxycut products containing the

“herbal” chemical ephedra were revealed to cause serious injuries and death, Defendants

reformulated the Hydroxycut products by removing ephedra and substituting other “herbal”

products that had similar sympathomimetic stimulant effects for the purpose of weight loss

and boosted energy. (Compl. ¶ 6.4.) Despite the serious health problems caused by the

ephedra formulation, Defendants allegedly failed to undertake scientifically valid or reliable

safety studies for the reformulated products and simply made them available to consumers. 

(Compl. ¶ 6.5.) Defendants knew or should have known about the potential serious dangers

of herbal toxicity in susceptible users, but did not inform consumers of these risks and

instead represented that the products had been researched and tested. (Compl. ¶¶ 6.7, 6.8,

6.10.) According to Plaintiff, the reformulated Hydroxycut products were in fact unsafe and

could cause serious injury to susceptible users. (Compl. ¶ 6.12.)

Under the facts alleged by Plaintiff, Defendants acted with reckless disregard for the

4 11cv1325 BTM(KSC)

Case 3:09-md-02087-BTM-KSC Document 1532 Filed 08/10/12 Page 4 of 5
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

safety of others when it released the reformulated Hydroxycut product to consumers without

adequate testing. Defendants knew that the ephedra formulation resulted in serious injury

and death yet proceeded to sell the new formulation, which contained different herbal

products with similar sympathomimetic stimulant effects, without making sure that it was

safe. Thus, Defendants knew or should have known that there was a likelihood of serious

injury to susceptible users.

Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that Defendants acted with gross negligence and

malice. Therefore, the Court denies Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s exemplary

damage claim.

IV. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons discussed above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN

PART and DENIED IN PART. The motion is granted as to Count V of the Complaint

(fraudulent concealment), which is DISMISSED. The motion is denied as to Plaintiff’s claim

for exemplary damages. Defendants shall file an answer to the Complaint within 15 days of

the entry of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 10, 2012

BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

5 11cv1325 BTM(KSC)

Case 3:09-md-02087-BTM-KSC Document 1532 Filed 08/10/12 Page 5 of 5