Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00567/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00567-8/pdf.json

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

---

– 1 – 17cv0567

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

ROSA ALVAREZ, individually and on behalf of herself and all others 

similarly situated,

 Plaintiff,

Case No. 17-cv-00567-BAS-BGS

ORDER:

(1)GRANTING 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

TO STRIKE; AND

(2)DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

[ECF No. 102, 103]

v.

NBTY, INC., et al.,

 Defendants.

Plaintiff Rosa Alvarez brings a complaint against Defendants NBTY, Inc. and 

Nature’s Bounty, Inc. Defendants manufacture, market, sell, and distribute biotin 

supplements under the Nature’s Bounty brand. Plaintiff alleges Defendants have 

violated California’s unfair competition law (“UCL”); and Consumers Legal 

Remedies Act (“CLRA”) through the labeling of their biotin products. 

On May 22, 2019, the Court denied Defendants’ motion for summary judgment 

and also denied Plaintiff’s motion for class certification. (ECF Nos. 96, 97.) In 

making these determinations, the Court analyzed, among other things, the report and 

deposition of Plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Barry Wolf. Plaintiff now moves for 

reconsideration of the Court’s order denying class certification. (“Mot.,” ECF No. 

102.) As an attachment to her Motion, Plaintiff included a new declaration by her 

Case 3:17-cv-00567-BAS-BGS Document 123 Filed 01/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
– 2 – 17cv0567

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

expert Dr. Wolf. Defendants move to strike that declaration. (ECF No. 103.) Both 

motions are opposed. The Court finds these Motions suitable for determination on 

the papers submitted and without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7.1(d)(1). For the 

reasons stated below, this Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Strike and 

DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration.

The Court incorporates the background sections from prior orders and does not 

repeat the background facts of this case here. (See ECF Nos. 96, 97.)

LEGAL STANDARD FOR MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Although Rule 59(e) permits a district court to reconsider and amend a 

previous order, the rule offers an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the 

interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. 

Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir.2000) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with 

newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was 

manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. 

Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). 

However, a motion for reconsideration may not be used to raise arguments or present 

evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the 

litigation. Id. It does not give parties a “second bite at the apple.” See id. “[A]fter 

thoughts” or “shifting of ground” do not constitute an appropriate basis for 

reconsideration. Ausmus v. Lexington Ins. Co., No. 08–CV–2342–L, 2009 WL 

2058549, at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 15, 2009).

MOTION TO STRIKE DR. WOLF’S DECLARATION

Plaintiff included the new declaration by Dr. Wolf because she believes “it is 

clear that the Court misunderstood Dr. Wolf’s point about the body’s recycling of 

biotin.” (ECF No. 102-2, at ¶ 5.) In the declaration, Dr. Wolf opines he “thought he 

was clear about the redundancy that recycling plays,” and “apologize[s] to the extent 

that the Court did not understand this.” (ECF No. 102-3, ¶ 2.) He then provides his 

Case 3:17-cv-00567-BAS-BGS Document 123 Filed 01/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
– 3 – 17cv0567

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

opinion regarding biotin recycling. Plaintiff acknowledges that Dr. Wolf prepared 

the new declaration so that he could “clarify[] existing opinions” and “correct the 

Court’s misapprehension of what he said and explain how the Court erred in denying 

class certification.” (ECF No 104, at 3.)

It is improper to submit evidence as a part of a motion for reconsideration that 

could have been provided earlier in the litigation. Dr. Wolf is attempting to clarify 

and add to his earlier opinion, but this clarification is not based on any new evidence 

or newly discovered arguments. “A Rule 59(e) motion may not be used to raise 

arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have 

been raised earlier in the litigation.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 

2003); see also ThermoLife Int’l, LLC v. Myogenix Corp., No. 13-CV-651 JLS 

(MDD), 2017 WL 4792426, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2017) (striking evidence 

attached to a motion for reconsideration that was filed to “[t]o rectify any possible 

ambiguity” on an issue and to “complete the record”).

Because the declaration is improper, the Court GRANTS the Motion and 

STRIKES Dr. Wolf’s Declaration, (ECF No. 102-3). The Court will not consider 

the declaration or the portions of Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration that rely on 

the declaration.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiff moves for reconsideration on the Court’s order denying class 

certification because she believes “the Order and subsequent case law, including two 

recent Ninth Circuit opinions, reveal that the Court should have granted class 

certification.” (ECF No. 102-1, at 1.) Plaintiff therefore moves for reconsideration 

on two grounds: clear error, and newly discovered evidence.

After reviewing Plaintiff’s arguments, the Court finds no evidence that it

clearly erred in denying class certification. The Court finds no clear error or manifest 

injustice in its ruling. Next, Plaintiff points to cases decided after the Court’s class 

certification order, arguing that the cases warrant reconsideration. First, Plaintiff 

Case 3:17-cv-00567-BAS-BGS Document 123 Filed 01/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
– 4 – 17cv0567

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

cites In re Hyundai and Kia Fuel Economy Litigation, 926 F.3d 539 (9th Cir. 2019), 

noting that the “Ninth Circuit recently reiterated . . . that class certification is not 

defeated by the inclusion of Class members with differing damages.” (Mot. at 4.) 

By calling the case a “reiteration” of prior law, Plaintiff is admitting that In re 

Hyundai is not an “intervening change in controlling law.” See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 

F.3d at 1263. It is therefore not a basis for reconsideration.1

 The same holds true for 

the other opinion Plaintiff cites, Yamagata v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC, No. 17-cv03529, 2019 WL 3815718 (N.D. Cal. June 5, 2019) which was issued by Judge 

Chhabria in the Northern District of California. This opinion issued by a district court 

is not controlling and also not a basis for reconsideration.

Plaintiff has not presented any basis for the Court to reconsider its prior order, 

and the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 3, 2020

 1 To the extent Plaintiff also argues that another recent Ninth Circuit opinion, Corcoran v. CVS 

Health Corp., 779 F. App’x 431 (9th Cir. 2019), warrants reconsideration, the Court disagrees, as 

Plaintiff acknowledges that Corcoran is also a reiteration of prior law. (See Mot. at 5.)

Case 3:17-cv-00567-BAS-BGS Document 123 Filed 01/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4