N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT M IC HAEL TUB B S; EB ONY B AKER ,

Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,
v. ADVOC ARE INTER

N ATIONAL, L.P., De fe nda nt-Appe l le e . No. 18-55395 D.C . No. 2:17-c v-04454-PSG-AJW
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Philip S. Gutierre z , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 12, 2019 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : GR

AB E R , B ER

ZON, a nd C HR ISTEN, C i rc uit Judge s. Pla intiffs M ic h a e l Tubbs a nd Ebony B ake r tim e ly

a ppe a l from the distric t
c ourt’ s dismissa l of the ir c om pla int a lle ging tha

t De fe nda nt AdvoC a

re Inte rnationa l ’ s m arke ting sta te m e nts we re fa lse or m isle a ding, in viola tion of 

# FIL ED N OV 19 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).se ve ra l C a l ifornia la ws. R e vie wing de novo, Sa ntom e nno v. Tra

nsa m e ric a Life Ins. C o., 883 F.3d 833, 836 (9th C i r. 2018), we a ffirm
. The distric t c ourt c o rre c tly he ld tha t Pla i ntiffs fa ile d

to a lle ge fa l se or m isle a ding sta

te m e nts unde r C a lifornia

la w. Se e Nat’ l C ounc il Aga inst He a lth Fraud, Inc . v. King B io Pha rm ., Inc ., 133 C a l. R

ptr. 2d 207, 212 (C t. App. 2003) (holding tha

t priva te pla intiffs m ay se e k re lie f only from fa lse or m i sle a ding sta te m e nts); se e a lso Kwa

n v. Sa nM e dic a Int’ l, 854 F.3d 1088, 1096 (9th C ir. 2017) (" King B io’ s holding is firm ly e sta blishe d la w in C a lifornia ." ). C a lifornia ’ s re a s ona ble c onsum e r sta

nda rd for a lle ging fa l se a dve rtising a nd unfa i r busine ss pra c tic e s " re quire s a

pla i ntiff to show pote

ntia l de c e ption of c onsum e rs a c ting
re a s ona bly in thec irc um sta

nc e s ." Hill v. Roll Int’ l C o rp., 128 C a l. R p tr. 3d 109, 115 (C t. App. 2011). " The fa lsity of the a dve rtising c la im s m a y be e sta blishe d by te sting, sc ie ntific lite rature , or a ne c dota l e vide nc e ." King B io, 133 C a l. R p tr. 2d a t 216. Pla intiffs’ ane c dota l e vide nc e , sta nding a lone , is insuffic ie nt to c re ate an infe re n c e of fa lsity . The e xpe rie nc e s of only two pe rsons a

re unlike ly

to ra ise an infe re n c e of fa lsity

be c a use re a sona

ble c onsum e rs ge ne ra lly

do not understa

nd
m arke ting sta

te m e nts a s prom ise s of pe rfe c tion. Se e B roc ke y v. M oore , 131 C a l. R ptr. 2d 746, 756 (C t. App. 2003) (sugge sting tha t the e xpe rie nc e of " ve ry

fe w 2pe rsons" or " i sola t e d e xam p le s" m ay not suffic e to show fa lse or m i sle a ding sta te m e nts); C onsum e r Advoc ate s v. Ec hosta r Sate lliteC o rp., 8 C a l. R ptr. 3d 22, 29–30 (C t. App. 2003) (holding tha t no re a s ona

b le c onsum e r of a te l e vision
sate llitesy ste m

would understa

nd a prom ise of " c ry s ta l c le ar" vide o and " C D qua lity " a udio " a s a prom ise of pe rfe c tion" ). Eve n a ssum ing tha

t Pla intiffs’ individual e xpe rie nc e s c ould giverise to a n infe re n c e of fa lsity , the a lle gations he re fa ll short. M a ny of the a l le ge d sta te m e nts— suc h a s the prom ise s of " gre at ta st[e ] " and a

" ne w outlook on life "

— are " a ll-but-m e a

ningle ss supe rlative s" be c a u se " no re a sona

ble c onsum e r would ta ke [the m ] a s a

nything m ore we ighty

tha n an a d ve rtising sloga

n ." Id. at 29. For the re m a inde r of the a lle ge d sta te m e nts, Pla intiffs’ c o m

pla int la c ks suffic ie nt de ta il to infe r fa lsity
. The distric t c ourt c o rre c tly he ld tha t the sc ie ntific study

of the e ffe c ts of AdvoC are Spark on the sprinting tim e s of c olle ge at

hle te s doe s not support Pla i ntiffs’ c la im s. On a

ppe a l, Pla intiffs point only to them arke t ing sta

t e m e nts tha

t Spark would " sha

rpe n m e nta l foc us" and provide" long la s ting e ne rgy ." Sprinting tim e s— a m e a sure of phy sic a l e xe rtion ove r a short pe riod of tim e
— i m plic ate
ne ithe r of the toute d

be ne fits of m e nta l foc us a nd long-la s ting e ne rgy .

3The distric t c ourt c o rre c tly he ld tha t the re p o rt by

Dr. R anda l l L. Ta c ke tt doe s not support Pla

intiffs’ c la i m s. W e a s sum e , without de c iding, tha t the distric t
c ourt e rre d by

e va luating thepe rsua sive ne s s the re port’ s fina l c onc lusions. Se e Sonne r v. Sc hwa

be N. Am ., Inc ., 911 F.3d 989, 992–93 (9th C ir. 2018) (pe r c uriam ) (holding tha

t the pe rsua sive ne ss of a

n a dm issible re port by an e xpe rt is for the fa c t-finde r to de c ide ). W e the re fore a c c e pt a s true tha t " Spark doe s not ha

ve any be n e fit tha

t would bem ore so tha

n inge sting thea

p proxim ate am ount of
c a ffe ine i n a ty

pic a l c up of c o ffe e . Spa

rk’ s a c tions a

re attribute d to thec a ffe ine in the p roduc t." B ut thosec onc lusions do not give rise to a n infe re nc e of fa l sity

with
re spe c t to them a

rke ting sta

te m e nts of m e nta l foc us a nd long-la sting e ne rgy , be c a use a re a s ona ble c onsum e r unde rsta

n ds tha t c a ffe ine a lso provide s those be ne fits. B e c a use we a ffirm

on the ground tha

t Pla i ntiffs ha

ve not a lle g e d a

fa l se or m isle a ding sta

te m e nt, we do not re a c h the a lte rnative grounds a dva nc e d by De fe nda nt on a ppe a l. AFFIRM E D.

4