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 OHAM M E D R

AHM AN, individually and on be ha l f of othe r m e m be rs of the ge ne ra l public sim ila

rly situa te d, Plaintiff-Appe lla nt,
v. M OTT’ S LLP, De fe nda

nt-Appe lle e . No. 15-15579 D.C . No. 3:13-c v-03482-SI M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Susa n Illston, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 19, 2017 Sa n Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER

and R AW LINSON, C irc uit Judge s, a nd STAFFOR

D, Distric t Judge
. **

M oha m m e d R ahm an a

ppe a l s the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de ny ing R ahm an’ s



# F IL ED
JUL 05 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

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

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.

** The Honora

ble W illia m H. Sta fford, Jr., Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of Florida , sitting by de signa tion.m otion for c la ss c e rtific a tion in this puta tive c la ss a c tion a g a inst M ott’ s LLP. W e gran te d R ahm an’ s pe tition for pe rm ission to a ppe a l the distric t c ourt’ s inte rloc utory

orde r on c e rtific a tion, a

nd we a ffirm
. In this dive rsity

a c tion, R ahm an a lle ge s tha t use of the sta

te m e n t “ No Suga r Adde d ” on M ott’ s 100% AppleJuic e doe s not c o m ply with a pplic a ble Food a

nd Drug Adm inistra

tion re gula

tions a nd, by e xte nsion, C a l ifornia ’ s She rm an La w a nd Unfa ir C om

pe tition La

w, 1 whic h wholly

a dopt the fe de ra l re gula

tions. W hile
a sse rting tha

t he satisfie d t

he re quire m e nts for both a n injunc tion c la s s unde r R ule 23(b)(2) a

nd a dam a ge s c la s s unde r R ule 23(b)(3), R ahm an sought c e rtific at ion unde r R ule 23(c )(4) with re spe c t to lia bility issue s only
. R ule 23(c )(4) provide s tha

t “ [w ] he n appropriate , a

n a c t ion m ay

be brought
or m a inta ine d a s a

c la ss a c tion with re spe c t

to pa rtic ula r issue s.” Fe d. R . C iv. P. 23(c )(4) (e m

pha sis a dde d). C e rtific a tion of a n issue s c la ss unde r R

ule 23(c )(4) is

“ a p propria te ” only if it “ ‘ m a te ria lly

a d va nc e s the disposition of the litiga tion a s a whole .’ ” W illia

m B . R ube nste in, 2 Ne wbe rg on C l a ss Ac t ions 4:90 (5th e d. 2012) (quoting M anua l for C o m ple x Litiga

tion, Fourth, § 21.24 (2004)); se e also Vale ntino v . C

arte r-W allac e , Inc

. , 97 F.3d 1227, 1229–30 (9th C ir. 1996) (va c a ting the d istric t c o urt’ s R

ule 23(c )(4) c e rtific a t ion orde r whe re , am ong othe r things, the

1 C a l. He a lth & Sa fe ty

C ode , §§ 109875–111915 (She rm an La w ); C a l. B us. & Prof. C ode , §§ 17200–17210 (Unfa ir C om pe tition La

w).

- 2-distric t c o urt did not a ddre ss whe the r a djudic a tion of thec e rtifie d issue s “ w ould

signific antly a d

v anc e the re solution of the unde rly ing c a s e ” ). R ahm an be ars the burde n of de m onstra ting tha t a c la s s should be c e rtifie d unde r R ule 23. N arouz v . C

harte r C ommc ’ns, LLC , 591 F.3d 1261, 1266 (9th C ir. 2010). Unc onvinc e d tha

t R ahm an m e t

tha t burde n through his m

otion for c la ss
c e rtific a tion, a

nd re c ogniz ing tha

t c e rtific a tion of a

n issue s c la s s m ust m a t e ria lly
a dva nc e re solution of the e ntire c a se , the distric t c ourt a ske d R ahm an to provide supple m e nta l brie fing a s to how da m a ge s would be re solve d if the lia bility issue s
we re c e rtifie d a

nd why c e rtify ing a

lia bility -only c la ss would m a te ria lly a dva nc e the l itiga t ion. The distric t c ourt found little tha t wa s he lpful in R a

hm a n ’ s supple m e nta l brie fing. As note d by

the distric t c ourt, R ahm an “ fa ile d to a rtic ulate why

a bifurc a te d proc e e ding would be m ore e ffic ie nt or de sira

b le ” an d wa s “ va gue a s to whe the r he inte nds to la

te r c e rtify a dam a ge s c la ss, a llow c la ss m e m be rs to individua lly

pursue dam a ge s , or ha [d] som e othe r undisc lose d pla n for re solving this c a s e .” Having found Rahm an’ s brie fing de fic ie nt, the distric t c ourt de nie d R ahm an ’ s m otion to c e rtify a R ule 23(c )(4) c la ss, e xpla ining a s follows: [A] distric t c ourt is not bound to c e rtify a lia bility c la ss m e re ly be c a use it is pe rm issible to do so under R ule 23(b)(3). The la

n gua g e of R u le 23(c )(4) spe a ks of c e rtify ing a s to pa rtic ula r issue s “ whe n a ppropria t e ,” m e aning tha

t “ [c ] o urts should use

R ule 23(c )(4) only

- 3-whe re re solution of the pa rtic ula r c om m on issue s would m a te ria lly a dva nc e the disposition of the litiga tion a s a whole .” J

a c o b v . Duane Re ade , Inc

. , 293 F.R .D. 578, 589 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). W e re vie w a distric t c ourt's de c i sion to c e rtify a c la ss for a

buse of disc re tion. Abdullah v . U.S. Se c . Assoc s., Inc

. , 731 F.3d 952, 956 (9th C ir. 2013). He re , a fte r giving R ahm an am p le opportunity

to e sta b lish tha t c e rtific a tion of a lia bility -only

c la s s would m a te ria lly

a dva nc e the litiga

tion, thedistric t c ourt
c onc lude d tha

t R ahm an fa ile d to show tha t c e rtific a tion of a

lia bility -only

c la ss wa s

“ a p propria te ” unde r R

u le 24(c )(4). W e find tha

t the distric t

c o urt did not a

buse its disc re tion in de ny i ng R ah m an’ s m otion to c e rtify a lia bility -only c la ss. AFFIRM E D.

- 4-