Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-03193/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-03193-3/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAIME JENSEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

NATROL, LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-03193-VC 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

CLASS CERTIFICATION

Re: Dkt. No. 120

For the reasons discussed at the hearing, the motion for class certification is denied 

without prejudice to filing a renewed motion on a stronger evidentiary record. To summarize: 

 1. Jensen appears to concede (correctly) that Natrol is not liable to people who take biotin 

supplements to alleviate biotinidase deficiency or other rare biotin-related genetic disorders. Yet 

she seeks to certify a class of all people who purchased Natrol’s biotin supplements—including 

people who have those rare disorders. Such a class cannot be certified. Under Ninth Circuit law, 

it must be at least “possible” that each class member suffered an injury at the hands of the 

defendant. Torres v. Mercer Canyons Inc., 835 F.3d 1125, 1137 n.6 (9th Cir. 2016). More 

generally, the class definition must be “reasonably co-extensive” with the plaintiff’s “chosen 

theory of liability.” Id. at 1136-37. If the proposed class includes a distinct subset of members 

who were not misled, who were not injured, who could not possibly recover, and who would be 

easy to weed out at the front end, then the proposed class membership does not “fit the theory of 

legal liability.” Id. at 1138. This is why, for example, classes are typically defined to include 

only people whose claims arose within the applicable limitations period.

2. There would presumably be nothing wrong with excluding the small number of people

Case 3:17-cv-03193-VC Document 140 Filed 01/27/20 Page 1 of 3
2

with biotinidase deficiencies from the class definition, and requiring class members to attest in 

claim forms to the fact that they do not suffer from the disorders that require the use of biotin 

supplements. See Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 844 F.3d 1121, 1131 (9th Cir. 2017). But on 

the current record, excluding people with biotinidase deficiencies would create another problem 

for Jensen: her proposed measure of aggregate damages is a full refund of all money from sales 

of Natrol’s biotin supplements nationwide. If purchasers with biotinidase deficiencies are not 

entitled to refunds and are therefore excluded from the class, this approach to damages is likely 

inadequate. See Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27, 35 (2013) (“[A] model purporting to 

serve as evidence of damages in [a] class action must measure only those damages attributable to 

[the plaintiff’s] theory. If the model does not even attempt to do that, it cannot possibly establish 

that damages are susceptible of measurement across the entire class for purposes of Rule 

23(b)(3).”); see also Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203 (restitution available under the UCL only 

for money or property “which may have been acquired by means of such unfair competition.”).

3. Jensen suggests that since only 0.00138 percent of people in the general population 

have biotinidase deficiencies, the Court could, in awarding class damages, simply deduct that 

percentage from the total amount of money from all Natrol’s retail sales. But that is facile. There 

is no basis for assuming that the biotinidase deficiency rate within the universe of people who 

purchase biotin supplements is similar to the biotinidase deficiency rate within the general 

population—after all, the evidence in the record (not to mention common sense) suggests that 

some people with biotinidase deficiencies are told by their doctors to use over-the-counter biotin 

supplements. Dkt. 121-9 at 18. And Jensen has provided no evidence from which the Court or a 

jury could arrive at a reasonable estimate of the percentage of Natrol’s sales that went to

biotinidase-deficient customers.1

***

1

Incidentally, if Jensen continues to use an aggregate damages model on a renewed motion for 

class certification, she should demonstrate that damages can be reasonably calculated even if the 

class is not nationwide but is instead limited to multi-state or California purchases.

Case 3:17-cv-03193-VC Document 140 Filed 01/27/20 Page 2 of 3
3

A case management conference is scheduled for February 12, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. for the 

purpose of setting a schedule for adjudication of a renewed motion for class certification. A joint 

case management statement is due seven days prior. The statement need not follow the standard 

format required by the local rules. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 27, 2020

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-03193-VC Document 140 Filed 01/27/20 Page 3 of 3