Source: https://litigation.consusgroup.com/2017/03/18/class-certified-korolshteyn-v-costco-wholesale-corporation-cost/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 06:51:54+00:00

Document:
false statements about the health benefits of TruNature Gingko Biloba with Vinpocetine (“TruNature Gingko”), which is . . . sold at the stores of Defendant 24 Costco Wholesale Corporation (“Costco”).
That’s generally a significant hurdle for a plaintiff and leverage point for settlement negotiations. Full complaint below.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for class certification. The 18 motion has been fully briefed, and the Court deems it suitable for submission without oral 19 argument. As discussed below, the motion is granted.
(1) violation of California’s unfair competition law (the “UCL”), California Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq.; and (2) violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), California Civil Code § 1750 et seq. The prayer for relief asks for restitution and disgorgement of Defendants’ revenues, actual, statutory and punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. [Id. at p. 15.] She now moves to certify a class.
“The class action is an exception to the usual rule that litigation is conducted by and on behalf of the individual named parties only.” Wal–Mart v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 348 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Parties seeking class certification must satisfy each of the four requirements of [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 23(a) . . . and at least one of the requirements of Rule 23(b).” Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 844 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir. 2017). “Rule 23(a) states four threshold requirements applicable to all class actions: (1) numerosity (a class so large that joinder of all members is impracticable); (2) commonality (questions of law or fact common to the class); (3) typicality (named parties’ claims or defenses are typical of the class); and (4) adequacy of representation (representatives will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class). Amchem Prods, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 613 (1997) (internal quotation marks, brackets, and ellipses omitted).
available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.’” Torres v. Mercer Canyons Inc., 835 F.3d 1125, 1132 (9th Cir. 2016).
(9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “A court, when asked to certify a class, is merely to decide a suitable method of adjudicating the case and should not turn class certification into a mini-trial on the merits.” Edwards v. First Am. Corp., 798 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2015).
documents and testimony at this stage, and may consider them where necessary for resolution of the motion for class certification.” Aguirre, 2016 WL 6573986, at *2 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted).
Here, in conjunction with the motion, the parties have combined to submit numerous declarations and expert reports and dozens of exhibits that they claim support their arguments for or against class certification. Perhaps unsurprisingly, these voluminous evidentiary submissions have yielded three separate motions to exclude the reports or declarations of four different experts or witnesses purportedly offering expert testimony.
That the evidence does or does not support the putative class’ claims is a separate question from whether a plaintiff may assert those claims on behalf of a class. The parties may disagree about the admissibility various expert reports and other declarations, but the admissibility of this testimony is largely inconsequential to the Court’s current task of determining whether Plaintiff’s claims are appropriate for determination on a classwide basis. Accordingly, the motions to exclude or strike the declarations, testimony or reports of Richard Bazinet, Beth Snitz, Susan Mitmesser, and Edward Rosick are all denied without prejudice. The parties are welcome to re-file these motions in connection with summary judgment motions or as motions in limine consistent with the deadlines set by the applicable case management orders and local rules.
Inc., 741 F.3d 1061, 1068 (9th Cir. 2014).
“To state a claim under the UCL . . . ‘based on false advertising or promotional practices, it is necessary only to show that members of the public are likely to be deceived.’” Pulaski & Middleman, LLC v. Google, Inc., 802 F.3d 979, 985 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal. 4th 298, 312 (2009)). “This inquiry does not require ‘individualized proof of deception, reliance and injury.’” Id. (quoting In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal. 4th at 320). “Thus, a court need not make individual determinations regarding entitlement to restitution. Instead, restitution is available on a classwide basis once the class representative makes the threshold showing of liability under the UCL.” Id. at 986.
Co., LLC, No. EDCV 13-00242 JGB OP, 2014 WL 1779243, at *14 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2014) (“[T]he determination of materiality, and thus reliance, is determined using objective criteria that apply to the entire class and do not require individualized determination.”); In re Steroid Hormone Prod. Cases, 181 Cal. App. 4th 145, 157 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (“Materiality of the alleged misrepresentation generally is judged by a ‘reasonable man’ standard.”).
reasonable person can be determined on a classwide basis. Therefore, the different requirements for UCL and CLRA claims do not warrant different outcomes in the class certification analysis. For this reason, and because neither party makes arguments unique to either proposed class, the Court does not separately analyze whether the two proposed classes satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(3).
The “numerosity” requirement is satisfied if the “class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). Defendants do not dispute that this requirement is satisfied, and in light of evidence that Costco sold over 1 million units of TruNature Gingko to thousands of consumers during the class period, the putative class easily meets this requirement for class certification.
Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 1998). “[W]hen determining typicality, the Court focuses on the defendant’s conduct and the plaintiff’s legal theory, not the specific facts from which the claim arises.” Allen v. Similasan Corp., 306 F.R.D. 635, 645 (S.D. Cal. 2015) (citing Parsons v. Ryan, 754 F.3d 657, 685 (9th Cir. 2014)). “Measures of typicality include ‘whether other members have the same or similar injury, whether the action is based on conduct which is not unique to the named plaintiffs, and whether other class members have been injured by the same course of conduct.’” Torres, 835 F.3d at 1141 (quoting Hanon, 976 F.2d at 508)).
have purchased TruNature Gingko but for these false statements and as a result paid money for a worthless product. The wrongful conduct (the allegedly false statements) and the resulting harm (the amount paid to purchase TruNature Gingko) are the same. In other words, none of Defendants’ allegedly wrongful conduct is unique to the named plaintiff or any member of the proposed class. Therefore, the typicality requirement is satisfied.
Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020. Defendants do not contest that Plaintiff’s counsel can adequately represent the class, but they argue that Korolshteyn is not an adequate named plaintiff because of what they deem to be credibility issues. The Court is not persuaded.
6 average consumer and that consumers rely on the statements when purchasing the product. 7 For all of the reasons discussed below, when Korolshteyn took TruNature Gingko, or even 8 if she took it at all, is irrelevant to the claims for which she seeks to represent the class.
Accordingly, the adequacy requirement for class certification is satisfied.
–Mart, 131 S.Ct. at 2556.
But because “‘[a]ny competently crafted class complaint literally raises 16 common questions,’ ” id. at 2551 (alteration in original) (quoting Richard A.
Rev. 97, 131–32 (2009)), courts should look for a “common contention” in 18 determining whether putative class members’ claims can be litigated together.
Alcantar v. Hobart Serv., 800 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2015).
Allen v. Hyland’s Inc., 300 F.R.D. 643, 666 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (quoting Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC, 617 F.3d 1168, 1172 (9th Cir. 2010)); see also Comcast Corp. v.
Behrend, 133 S.Ct. 1426, 1432 (2013) (“If anything, Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance criterion is even more demanding than Rule 23(a).”). “Rule 23(b)(3) requires a showing that questions common to the class predominate, not that those questions will be answered, on the merits, in favor of the class.” Amgen, 133 S. Ct. at 1191 (emphasis in original). To satisfy Rule 23(b)(3), “the common questions must be a significant aspect of the case that can be resolved for all members of the class in a single adjudication.” Berger, 741 F.3d at 1068 (internal quotation marks and ellipses omitted).
“The Rule 23(b)(3) predominance inquiry asks the court to make a global determination of whether common questions prevail over individualized ones. For purposes of this analysis, an individual question is one where members of a proposed class will need to present evidence that varies from member to member, while a common question is one where the same evidence will suffice for each member to make a prima facie showing or the issue is susceptible to generalized, class-wide proof.” Torres, 835 F.3d at 1134 (citing Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, 136 S.Ct. 1036, 1045 (2016)) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted).
for claims of false statements of effectiveness of various homeopathic remedies); Forcellati, 2014 WL 1410264, at *12 (certifying class for claims of false statements of effectiveness of various homeopathic cold and flu remedies); cf. Ries v. Arizona Bev. USA LLC, 287 F.R.D. 523, 537 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (finding commonality requirement satisfied as to questions of “whether the use of the terms ‘All Natural’ or ‘100% Natural’ to advertise beverages that contain HFCS or citric acid violates the UCL, FAL, or CLRA”).
Here, Plaintiff’s entire lawsuit rides on her claim that TruNature Gingko provides no benefits and that the statements on the product labels are false. The answer to these questions will be the same for the entire class. Likewise, the determination of whether the statements on the label are material and likely to deceive a reasonable consumer will be the same for the entire class. The answers to these questions will resolve issues that are central to the validity of each class members’ claims in one stroke. Alcantar, 800 F.3d at 1052. These common questions are not only more significant than other questions at issue in this suit, they are the most significant questions in this lawsuit. Therefore, these questions predominate over any individual questions that may arise.
the time of purchase without the fraudulent or omitted information.”).
class members may have learned about Gingko biloba or TruNature Gingko from other sources does not absolve Defendants from liability for false statements that appeared on the labels of the products purchased by the class members. Mullins v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 2016 WL 1535057, at *3 (“How consumers first learned about Joint Juice—from a doctor, parent, Joe Montana, or the packaging—does not matter if ‘they nonetheless decided to purchase the product only for its purported health benefits.’”) (quoting Rikos v. Proctor & Gamble Co., 799 F.3d 497, 512 (6th Cir. 2015)); see also Ries, 287 F.R.D. at 537 (“[V]ariation among class members in their motivation for purchasing the product, the factual circumstances behind their purchase, or the price that they paid does not defeat the relatively ‘minimal’ showing required to establish commonality.”).
Defendants also argue that Plaintiff does not have a workable damages model. This argument reflects a misunderstanding of Plaintiff’s claims. The TAC alleges, and Plaintiff argues, that TruNature Gingko has no value whatsoever and that any perceived benefits by consumers are merely the result of a placebo effect. If Plaintiff can prove that TruNature Gingko does not have any impact on brain health or memory and therefore does not perform as advertised on the labels and is worthless, the putative class will be entitled to restitution of the full amount they paid for the product. This full refund damages model, particularly considering Costco’s records of purchases of TruNature Gingko, is entirely workable.
choosing which television to buy. See Pierce-Nunes v. Toshiba Am. Info. Sys., Inc., No. CV 14-7242-DMG (KSx), 2016 WL 5920345, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Jun. 23, 2016). Unlike these other products, it is plausible to contend that no one would have purchased TruNature Gingko if not for the representations on the label, and that if the representations on the label are false, consumers who purchased TruNature Gingko did not receive any value and are entitled to a full refund of their purchase price. In this regard, supplements like Gingko biloba are entirely distinct from food or televisions because consumers know generally the purpose of food and the function of a TV without reading a description on the label. Consumers do not necessarily know what benefit a supplement like Gingko biloba provides without reading the label. Accordingly, any damages calculation issues are not an obstacle to class certification.
In sum, “[t]he Court finds that Plaintiff’s full refund damages model matches h[er] theories of liability. Plaintiff claims that [Gingko biloba] is valueless, and Plaintiff has produced evidence that supports h[er] claim. If the finder of fact finds that [Gingko biloba] is in fact valueless then that justifies fully refunding the class for their purchases.” Lambert v. Nutraceutical Corp., No. CV 13-05942-AB (Ex), 2015 WL 12655388, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2015).
Because common questions that are subject to resolution using classwide proof predominate, the commonality and predominance requirements are met.
misrepresent the benefits of their products secure in the knowledge that their return policy 3 effectively immunizes them from any suit seeking restitution. Moreover, to require each 4 absent class member to drive to a Costco store, wait in line, deal with an employee and ask 5 for a relatively small refund is not superior to obtaining relief as a class. Accordingly, the 6 superiority requirement is satisfied.
Plaintiff’s motion for class certification [Doc. No. 105] is GRANTED.
the date notice is disseminated.
Plaintiff Tatiana Korolshteyn is appointed as class representative.
Plaintiff’s counsel of record Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman, & Balint, P.C. and 21 Boodell & Domanskis, LLC are appointed as class counsel.
2 Plaintiff’s motion to strike the declaration of Dr. Susan Mitmesser [Doc. No. 122] is DENIED without prejudice.
4 Plaintiff’s motion to strike the declaration and revised report of Dr. Edward Rosick [Doc. No. 125] is DENIED without prejudice.
notice, each side shall file its proposal on April 7, 2017.

References: § 17200
 § 1750
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.