Major sued Ocean Spray alleging that she bought several
Ocean Spray juices/drinks “unlawfully labeled ‘No Sugar Added’ or bearing
improper nutrient content claims, or false representations that the products are
free from artificial colors, flavors or preservatives.” She alleged that she bought five flavors, Blueberry
Juice Cocktail, 100% Juice Cranberry & Pomegranate, Diet Sparkling Pomegranate
Blueberry, Light Cranberry, and Ruby Cherry. She asserted the usual California claims,
including warranty claims.
Her complaint defined the putative class as California
purchasers who bought Ocean Spray products (1) labeled “No Sugar Added” but
which contained concentrated fruit juice and/or provided enough calories to
trigger a disclosure requirement; (2) falsely represented to contain no
artificial colors, flavors or preservatives; (3) represented to be “healthy” or
a source of an antioxidant/nutrient in violation of nutrient standards. The class certification motion reformulated
the putative class as purchasers who bought any products from Ocean Spray’s
100% Juice, Juice Drinks, Sparkling, and Cherry products, in any flavors.
The court found that Major failed to show typicality. A district court must “ensure that the named
plaintiffs have incentives that align with those of absent class members so as
to assure that the absentees' interests will be fairly represented.” Typicality
isn’t satisfied “where the evidence needed to prove at least one of the named
plaintiff's claims is not probative of the other class members' claims.” When
cases involve several products, typicality isn’t met when the named plaintiff
bought a different product than that purchased by unnamed plaintiffs.
And that was true because Major’s proposed classes
encompassed products she didn’t herself purchase. For example, Major sought to cover any
product from the Sparkling line, based on the purchase of Diet Sparkling
Pomegranate Blueberry drink. But the
motion failed to link any of those products to any alleged misbranding.
Major failed to
explain why every flavor in the Sparkling line was misbranded. The labels and nutrition claims on each
product may be unique. Major based her
claims with respect to the Sparkling line in part on the claims made on the
Diet Pomegranate Blueberry label, but because that language includes specific
claims about blueberries, it would only be applicable to drinks containing
blueberries. The evidence needed to
prove that the blueberry claims were false wouldn’t be probative of the claims
of unnamed class members who bought non-blueberry Sparkling products.
(This is not an unexpected result. But I wonder how strongly it follows from the
rationale for the typicality requirement. In what way would including other
products provide plaintiff with the wrong incentives to represent the entire
class? Is the thought that she might
wrongly give up claims based on other products in order to achieve a more
favorable result with respect to products she bought?)
No comments:
Post a Comment