Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-02204/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-02204-13/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alex Khasin
Plaintiff
R. C. Bigelow, Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

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

ALEX KHASIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. C. BIGELOW, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 12-cv-02204-WHO 

ORDER REGARDING DISPUTE OVER 

DISCOVERY OF PROFITS

Re: Dkt. No. 96

Plaintiff Alex Khasin alleges that defendant R.C. Bigelow Inc. made false health claims by 

promoting the presence of antioxidants in its tea products and claiming associated health benefits.

The parties have filed a joint letter disputing Khasin’s entitlement to discovery of Bigelow’s 

profits and costs. Dkt. No. 96. Khasin argues that “[a]s long as a theory of recovery of unjust 

enrichment is present in the case, Plaintiff is allowed to seek some percentage of Defendant’s net 

profits as a remedy for himself and the class.” Id. at 3. Bigelow counters that its profits and costs 

are irrelevant because the proper measure of restitution in a food labeling case is the price 

premium attributable to the challenged label (the difference between the product as labeled and the 

product as received), not its profits. Bigelow is correct. 

The law is clear in this District that “[t]he proper measure of restitution in a mislabeling 

case is the amount necessary to compensate the purchaser for the difference between a product as 

labeled and the product as received, not the full purchase price or all profits.” Trazo v. Nestle 

USA, Inc., 12-cv-02272-PSG, 2015 WL 4196973, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 10, 2015) (citations 

omitted); see also Ivie v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., 12-cv-02554-RMW, 2015 WL 183910, at *2 

(N.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2015) (“plaintiffs may only recover restitutionary damages, which would be 

the price premium attributable to the offending labels, and no more”); Brazil v. Dole Packaged 

Case 3:12-cv-02204-WHO Document 98 Filed 08/12/15 Page 1 of 2
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

Foods, LLC, 12-cv-01831-LHK, 2014 WL 5794873, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2014) (“The proper 

measure of restitution in a mislabeling case is the amount necessary to compensate the purchaser 

for the difference between a product as labeled and the product as received.”). As Judge Grewal 

of this District observed in rejecting the same argument made by Khasin’s counsel in a different 

food labeling case:

[Khasin] cites a number of cases to support his argument that he can 

pursue nonrestitutionary disgorgement under a quasi-contract 

theory. But none of those cases address that remedy in the context of 

a product mislabeling claim. The nonrestitutionary disgorgement 

remedy which [Khasin] seeks would require [Bigelow] “to surrender 

... all profits earned as a result of [the alleged] unfair business 

practice regardless of whether those profits represent money taken 

directly from persons who were victims of the unfair practice.”

Trazo, 2015 WL 4196973, at *3 (citing Kor. Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal.4th 

1134, 1145 (2003)). Khasin is not entitled to do so.

Khasin’s request is DENIED. Bigelow states that its gross sales and the retail pricing of 

the products at issue have already been produced or are already available to Khasin. Dkt. No. 96 

at 5. Khasin does not dispute this or explain why that information is not sufficient to present a 

damages theory based on the difference between the products as labeled and the products as 

received. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 12, 2015

______________________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-02204-WHO Document 98 Filed 08/12/15 Page 2 of 2