Consumer Class Action

MillerCoors Over the Moon

** Brewer prevails against Blue Moon “Craft Beer” false advertising suit **

Craft beers in different bottles.

We’ve blogged in the past about the raft of consumer class actions hitting beer and spirits makers – particularly lawsuits targeting manufacturers with claims that terms such as “handcrafted” or “handmade” are misleading if used by companies employing typical mass-production methods.  For example in Parent v. MillerCoors LLC., No. 15-cv-01204-GPC-WVG (S.D. Cal. May 30, 2015), MillerCoors – maker of that campus staple, Keystone Light (among a host of other brews) — was sued based on the premise that it’s Blue Moon beer misleads consumers into believing it is a “microbrew” or “craft beer” by using those terms in its advertising and by withholding the name “MillerCoors” from its label.

On October 26, 2015, the court granted MillerCoor’s  first motion to dismiss.  Dkt No. 17.

The court found that a reasonable consumer was not likely to be deceived by Defendant’s representations because MillerCoors’ use of the “Artfully Crafted” trademark was mere puffery.  Id. at 12–16.  The court also rejected Plaintiff’s argument that Blue Moon’s “placement among other craft beers” in retail stores was deceptive because Plaintiff did not allege, and provided no factual allegations from which the court could reasonably infer, that MillerCoors had any control over where retailers place Blue Moon on their shelves.  Id.  Plaintiff was given leave to amend, however, which he did, focusing his amended argument on the definition of “craft beer” set forth by the Brewer’s Association (and in various common dictionaries) providing that a “craft beer” connotes a beer made by traditional or non-mechanized means.  Dkt No. 19.  Plaintiff also alleged that the price differential between Blue Moon and comparable non-craft beers was, itself, a representation that the beer was superior.

The court rejected these arguments and dismissed the second amended complaint — this time with prejudice.  Parent v. Millercoors LLC, No. 3:15-CV-1204-GPC-WVG, 2016 WL 3348818, at *6 (S.D. Cal. June 16, 2016).  Again, the court considered MillerCoors’ Blue Moon advertising, as far as it pertains to representations about “craft beer,” as non-actionable puffery.  Id. ([T]he “advertisements contain ‘generalized, vague, and unspecified assertions’ that amount to ‘mere puffery upon which a reasonable consumer could not rely.’”)  Further, the court rejected Plaintiff’s argument that the price of a product can constitute a representation or statement of product quality.  Id. (citing Boris v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 35 F. Supp. 3d 1163, 1169 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (finding that the price of a migraine medication did not constitute a representation or statement about the product that could support consumer claims against a retailer under the UCL, CLRA, or FAL)).

Our takeaway:  Drink what you like.  Beer snobbery will get you nowhere.

 

Share this:
Facebooktwitterlinkedin

Turning Tide on the Whole Nation as a Viable Class?

** Is the All State Nationwide Class Back for False Advertising Plaintiffs?**                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

Abstract map of the United States of America covered by a social network composed of blue people symbols connected together at various sizes and depths on a white background with pixelated borders. Futuristic north american computer and social network background.

Class defense counsel, faced with a false advertising law suit seeking to certify a class of consumers across multiple states, often rely on Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012) as impenetrable authority for the proposition that material differences between various state consumer protection laws preclude one single court from certifying a nationwide consumer class.  Mazza was a defining “stay in your lane” case for consumer class actions – but are chinks in the armor showing?

In Mazza, defendant Honda on appeal from the lower court, which certified a class of Acura RL buyers who complained of a faulty collision-mitigation braking system, successfully argued at the Ninth Circuit that several material differences between California consumer-protection laws and those of other jurisdictions at issue precluded certification of a nationwide class.  666 F.3d at 591.  Some states, for example, require plaintiffs to demonstrate scienter and/or reliance, while others do not.  Id. Similarly, some state’s consumer laws have no private right of action.  Id.  And significant differences exist in the remedies available to plaintiffs under the various state laws.  Id.  Because prevailing choice-of-law analysis required that home-state law should govern each class member’s claim, the court vacated the class-certification order.  Id.

Many trial courts – not just those in the Ninth Circuit – have followed the Mazza court’s reasoning and denied nationwide class certification where material differences in state laws were identified – even at the pleading stage. Gianino v. Alacer Corp., 846 F. Supp. 2d 1096 (C.D. Cal. 2012); Frezza v. Google Inc., 2013 WL 1736788 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2013) (precluding North Carolina plaintiffs from asserting claims under California law, given that the transaction at issue took place in North Carolina); Ralston v. Mortgage Investors Group, Inc., 2012 WL 1094633 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2012) (out of state adjustable-rate mortgage holders could not rely on California UCL); Maniscalo v. Brother International (USA) Corp., 709 F.3d 202 (3d Cir. 2013) (New Jersey law does not apply to South Carolina consumers); Garland v. Servicelink L.P., No. GLR–13–1472, 2013 WL 5428716 (D. Md. 2013) (Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) does not apply to Maryland residents);  In re Celexa & Lexapro Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., 291 F.R.D. 13 (D. Mass. 2013) (nationwide class of prescription anti-depressant drugs buyers could not be certified); Harris v. CVS Pharm., Inc., CV 13–02329 AB (AGRx), 2015 WL 4694047, at *4–5 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2015) (California plaintiff who purchased products in California lacked standing to bring a claim under a Rhode Island statute); Davison v. Kia Motors Am., Inc., No. SACV 15-00239-CJC, 2015 WL 3970502, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 29, 2015) (denying nationwide certification on behalf of Kia Optima owners whose vehicle had allegedly defective electronic door locks).

But more recently, judges are taking a second look at Mazza.  Judge Gillan in the Northern District of California recently stated that reading a “bright line rule” into Mazza “significantly overreads” the case.  Valencia v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am. Inc., No. 15-CV-00887-HSG, 2015 WL 4760707, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2015).  Rather, he stated, Mazza’s application should be limited to its choice-of-law analysis and its determination that California law should not be applied to non-California residents, rather than a wholesale edict that nationwide classes are, as a matter of law, un-certifiable.  Id. citing Forcellati v. Hyland’s Inc., 876 F.Supp.2d 1155, 1159 (C.D.Cal.2012).  And rather than the choice of law analysis being performed at the pleading stage on a motion to dismiss, Judge Gillan held that this factual inquiry is more appropriately addressed at the class certification stage.  Id. citing In re Clorox Consumer Litigation, 894 F.Supp.2d 1224, 1237 (N.D.Cal.2012) (“Since the parties have yet to develop a factual record, it is unclear whether applying different state consumer protection statutes could have a material impact on the viability of Plaintiffs’ claims”).

Last week, the court in Kaatz v Hyland’s Inc., No. 7:16-cv-00237-VB, (S.D.N.Y July 6, 2016) (Dkt. No. 29) similarly found it premature to deal with concerns about standing to represent consumers in all 50 states at the pleading stage. Judge Briccetti stated he was part of a “growing consensus” of federal district judges who believe standing issues that go to putative class members’ commonality and typicality are better addressed at the class certification stage, rather than on a motion to dismiss.  Dkt. No. 29 at 7 – 8, citing In re DDAVP Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litig., 903 F. Supp. 2d 198, 214 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).  The Kaatz case, itself, dealt with two New York residents who claimed they were misled by the marketing and labeling for Hyland’s homeopathic baby products such as Baby Teething Gel and Baby Nighttime Tiny Cold Syrup.  The allegations followed the familiar trope of “natural” claims being misleading, as the product/s allegedly contained synthetic ingredients such as sodium benzoate and potassium sorbate, which are used as food preservatives.  They accused Hyland of violating all 50 states’ consumer protection laws and sought to certify a nationwide class.  Plaintiffs argued that even though they were all New York residents, the questions of common issues and manageability of the proposed nationwide class were better left for the class certification stage.  Judge Briccetti agreed, holding that Hyland’s arguments were “premature” at the motion to dismiss stage – finding that “class certification is logically antecedent to standing when, as here, class certification is the source of the potential standing problems.”  Id.

Share this:
Facebooktwitterlinkedin

Long Term Effects of Tobacco II

** A Return to the Limits of In Re Tobacco II?  Courts Find That Not Every Advertisement is Part of a “Long-Term Campaign” **                                                                                                                                                                                              

London, England - May 20, 2016: Packets of Various Old Cigarette Boxes from the 1970's

We normally don’t blog about unpublished decisions because . . . lack of precedential value and all that . . . .  and that may turn out to be the case with the recent California Court of Appeal’s opinion in Santamarina v. Sears Roebuck & Co., B246705, 2016 WL 1714226, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 26, 2016) and the Ninth Circuit’s memorandum decision in Haskins v. Symantec Corp., No. 14-16141 (9th Cir. June 20, 2016).  But these decisions are simply too good for us to pass up the opportunity to post about them  – particularly for those who represent clients being sued under California’s CLRA or UCL based on foggy claims of consumer fraud.  Invariably, a defendant bringing a Rule 9(b) motion to dismiss or opposing class certification based on the putative class representative’s inability to identify the false advertisements she relied on will be met with the plaintiff’s invocation of the “long-term advertising campaign” language in In re Tobacco II Cases (Tobacco II), 46 Cal. 4th 298 (2009) – the salve that heals all reliance deficiencies.

Of course, Tobacco II dealt with a class representatives’ allegations of “a decades-long campaign of deceptive advertising and misleading statements about the addictive nature of nicotine and the relationship between tobacco use and disease.”  46 Cal. 4th at 306 (emphasis added.)  Which is no exaggeration, Joe Camel was R.J. Reynolds’ pitchman for a decade — although it seemed much longer — and the Marlboro Man rode shotgun for Philip Morris for almost half a century.  Based on that allegation, the California Supreme Court held, “[W]here . . . a plaintiff alleges exposure to a long-term advertising campaign, the plaintiff is not required to plead with an unrealistic degree of specificity that the plaintiff relied on particular advertisements or statements.”  Id. at 328.  Despite the limited nature of this ruling, plaintiffs who have no idea what advertisements they may have seen frequently claim that the defendant engaged in a “long-term [false] advertising campaign.” Id.

Courts have shown varying degrees of willingness to go along with this class representative claim, particularly at the pleading and class certification stages.  Those that do, often quote this language from Tobacco II:  “The substantive right extended to the public by the UCL is the right to protection from fraud, deceit and unlawful conduct, and the focus of the statute is on the defendant’s conduct.” 46 Cal 4th at 324.  Courts accepting the “long-term advertising campaign” excuse for the plaintiff’s inability to identify the advertisements he relied on tend to read Tobacco II as a judicial declaration that the UCL and CLRA are primarily punish-the-defendant statutes and only secondarily consumer protection laws.

But in Santamarina – a case involving “Made in the USA” advertising by Sears for its Craftsman® tools – the California Court of Appeal scaled back the expansive readings of Tobacco II by other California courts.  In Santamarina, the putative class representatives were able to identify the specific advertising and labeling on which they relied so standing was not at issue as it was in Tobacco II.  In addition, falsity and materiality were not in dispute given California law on “Made in the USA” claims.  Moreover, discovery in the case apparently showed that Sears understood that “Made in the USA” was a valuable sales claim and internal marketing studies demonstrated that a significant percentage of consumers believed Craftsman® tools were made in the United States.

Despite the above, the Court of Appeal concluded that plaintiffs could not establish commonality or that the proposed class was ascertainable.  Notably, the plaintiffs defined the class as “All persons who purchased, in the State of California from January 6, 2001 through the present, any Craftsman branded tool or product where any unit or part thereof was entirely or substantially made, manufactured, or produced outside of the United States.”  The Court of Appeal agreed with the superior court that this definition doomed the proposed class under commonality and ascertainability requirements because the proposed class included consumers who never saw any Craftsman® “Made in the USA” advertising or labeling.  The Court of Appeal responded to plaintiffs’ incantation of Tobacco II by holding, “Given that the time period at issue was several years, and only some Sears advertising and marketing could potentially be found to be false or misleading, substantial evidence supported the trial court’s finding that the advertising at issue here is not equivalent to the decades-long campaign in Tobacco II.”  Particularly important are these words:  “In contrast to the evidence here, Tobacco II ‘involved identical misrepresentations and/or nondisclosures by the defendants made to the entire class.’” Santamarina, 2016 WL 1714226, at *10 (citing  Kaldenbach v. Mutual of Omaha Life Ins. Co. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 830, 849.

For being designated as an unpublished opinion, the California Court of Appeal’s decision in Santamarina is unusually expansive in its analysis – covering 34 pages.  In contrast, Haskins v. Symantec is the soul of wit.  In a mere two paragraphs, the Ninth Circuit upheld the district court’s dismissal of a putative class action complaint alleging that Symantec failed to warn consumers that hackers had compromised the 2006 version of its ubiquitous Norton antivirus software.  The plaintiff claimed, among other things, that she relied on Symantec’s advertising that its software was secure (when it allegedly wasn’t) in buying it – without identifying the specific advertising.  The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal under Rule 9(b) “[b]ecause Haskins’s complaint did not allege that she read and relied on a specific misrepresentation by Symantec.”  In response to the plaintiff’s predictable invocation of Tobacco II, the Ninth Circuit found that the plaintiff “failed to establish that the Tobacco II standard is applicable to her pleadings because the misrepresentations at issue here were not part of an extensive and long-term advertising campaign like the decades-long campaign engaging in saturation advertising targeting adolescents in Tobacco II.”

Two cases do not a trend make — especially when California law is involved.  But it is encouraging to see courts – even in unpublished decisions – return Tobacco II to its stated limits rather than assuming that any and every advertisement is part of a long-term campaign.

Share this:
Facebooktwitterlinkedin

Ice Ice (Baby)

** Purported Class Action Attempts to Sink Starbucks with claims over allegedly misleadingly frozen water **                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

danger thin ice - warning sign by a lake

Last week, a disgruntled Starbucks patron in Chicago filed a putative class action against the coffee icon in the Northern District of Illinois claiming that consumers like her have been defrauded over the past ten years by big plastic cups of ice.  Pincus v. Starbucks Corporation, 1:16-cv-04705 (N.D. Ill. April 27, 2016) (Dkt. No. 1).  Granted, all of the drinks that are part of the lawsuit are called “Iced Something-Or-Other,” but according to the Plaintiff that doesn’t justify Starbucks putting ice in the beverages.  Okay, that’s overstating it a bit.

The lawsuit hinges on Starbucks’ use of the acronym for fluid ounce (“fl. oz.”) on its menus and in other advertising.  Plaintiff contends that “fl. oz.” means just that – an ounce of fluid – and the actual fluid ounces in Starbucks iced drinks are less than those claimed in its advertising.  It is only by putting pre-measured scoops of ice in the drinks that the nefarious Starbucks baristas are able to completely fill those ubiquitous transparent cups.  Starbucks, of course, is behind the whole scheme supplying the baristas with beverage cups with fill-lines printed on them (product/water or lemonade/ice) as well as different size ice scoopers (Tall/Grande/Venti).  Plaintiff claims that she, and millions of other Starbucks aficionados across the United States, relied on the Company’s representations about the number of fluid ounces in their drinks and “Plaintiff would not have paid as much, if anything for the Cold Drinks had she known that it [sic] contained less, and in many cases, nearly half as many, fluid ounces than claimed by Starbucks.”

“Ounce” is Middle English from the Anglo-French “unce” and is a unit of mass equal to 1/16 of an avoirdupois pound and 1/12 of the troy pound favored by precious metal dealers.  More importantly, an ounce is 0.666682 of a jigger of Jim Beam.  Accordingly, any class certified in this case must certainly exclude gold investors and may need to be limited to hard core drinkers who know what an ounce looks (and feels) like.  But while the public may have some difficulty visually identifying an ounce, they certainly know the difference between a Grande and a Venti, which is, after all, what they’re buying.

Plaintiff’s class definition is “[a]ll persons in the United States of America who purchased one or more of Defendant’s Cold Drinks at any time between April 27, 2006 and the present.”  “Cold Drinks”  include, but are not limited to, “iced coffee, shaken iced tea, shaken iced tea lemonade, Refreshers®, and Fizzio™ handcrafted sodas” (which, as an aside, are sadly not available at all Starbucks locations – but for those in the right locale, our pro tip is the Golden Ginger Ale).  Although both cold and a drink, the Frappuccino® is not included.  And that’s the whole problem with this case, isn’t it?

The Frappuccino® contains plenty of ice.  But because the ice is blended with the flavored ingredients, it apparently qualifies as a liquid even though it’s really tiny shards of ice.  Which raises the questions:  If the ice melts in a Starbucks Iced Coffee before the purchaser finishes drinking it, is the purchaser getting the advertised number of fluid ounces?  What if the purchaser is an ice chomper?  Plaintiff’s complaint shrewdly anticipates these defenses.  First, Starbucks uses “large pieces of ice” that “take up more space and thus when melted, will yield fewer measured ‘fluid’ ounces of coffee or tea . . . .”  (Starbucks is skimping on the water!)  More broadly, Plaintiff declares that “a reasonable consumer does not wait for the ice in a Cold Drink to melt before consuming the Cold Drink.”  This point, of course, will require survey evidence to establish — or perhaps the class can be limited to purchasers of Starbucks Cold Beverages who are not sippers or chompers.  (Ascertainability might be a problem here.)

Starbucks suffers from its transparency (which is the opposite of the problem it faced in a now dismissed slack fill case against it filed in New York).  Anyone who purchases an iced beverage for the first time – particularly a shaken iced tea, a Refresher® or a Fizzio™  – is startled when the barista pours such a small amount of the flavored stuff in the bottom of one of those big plastic cups and then tops it off with water (or lemonade) and finally, a huge mound of ice.  A Diet Coke from the McDonald’s drive-thru window retains its mystery.  How much syrup?  How much ice?  But for those who love Starbucks, the beverages are consistently great – a treat to be savored slowly . . . while the triple-filtered ice melts.

Share this:
Facebooktwitterlinkedin

Class Actions And Taxes in New Jersey

** “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except class actions and taxes.” – (paraphrasing) Ben Franklin **

HiResWhile tax season is now behind most of us, things are just starting to heat up for Intuit, Inc., owner of one of the largest online tax preparation systems – TurboTax.  On April 12, 2016, Intuit was sued in a putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey over warranty and damage limitations in TurboTax’s Terms of ServiceRubin v. Intuit Inc., Case No. 3:16-CV-02029 (Dist. N.J. April 12, 2016) (Dkt. No. 1).  The claim is made under New Jersey’s  Truth in Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (“TCCWNA”), N.J.S.A 56:12-14 et seq.  Due, perhaps, to its difficult-to-remember acronym, the TCCWNA gathered dust on the shelves of plaintiff consumer lawyers for the first thirty years of its existence.  This is surprising given that the TCCWNA has two significant advantages over New Jersey’  other consumer statute, The Consumer Fraud Act (“CFA”), N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 et seq.:  (1) The TCCWNA provides for a minimum of $100 statutory damages per consumer (N.J.S.A. 56:12-17) and (2)  The TCCWNA doesn’t require putative class members to have actually purchased anything.  N.J.S.A. 56:12-15 (TCCWNA applies to “consumer[s] or prospective consumer[s]”).  .

Which brings us to TurboTax.  Intuit has a fairly standard Terms of Service page on its website that users must agree to – terms of service that are particularly apropos for a company whose principal service results in the filing of income tax returns under penalty of perjury by consumers who tend to wait until the last minute to perform this painful task with varying degrees of care.  These terms include an acknowledgement by the user that “THE SITE IS PROVIDED ‘AS IS,’ WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED” as well as an agreement that “DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES” are prohibited.  Of course, TurboTax’s terms also provide that, where the laws of particular states do not permit Intuit to limit its liability in certain ways, those limitations do not apply to users in those states, but otherwise, “THE . . . LIABILITY OF INTUIT . . . IS LIMITED TO THE GREATEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY SUCH STATE LAW.”

How can such common provisions in website terms of use result in liability under New Jersey law?  Enter the TCCWNA, which provides, “No seller . . . shall in the course of his business offer to any consumer or prospective consumer or enter into any written consumer contract or give or display any written consumer warranty, notice or sign . . . which includes any provision that violates any clearly established legal right of a consumer . . . established by State or Federal law.”  N.J.S.A 56:12-15.  In Rubin, the plaintiffs contend that Intuit’s standard warranty limitations violate New Jersey common law and State and Federal statutes, including New Jersey’s Products Liability Act, its Punitive Damages Act, and the Uniform Commercial Code.

“But wait!” you say.  What about Intuit’s statement in the TurboTax Terms of Service that the damages limitations are void where prohibited?  Ironically, according to the plaintiffs, that provision is not only not exculpatory – it’s actually a separate violation of the TCCWNA.  The New Jersey statute provides, “No consumer contract, notice or sign shall state that any of its provisions is or may be void, unenforceable or inapplicable in some jurisdictions without specifying which provisions are or are not void, unenforceable or inapplicable within the State of New Jersey; provided, however, that this shall not apply to warranties.”  N.J.S.A. 56:12-16.  Even when a company tries to comply with state statutes, it may be violating New Jersey’s TCCWNA.

It will be interesting to see whether the U.S. Supreme Court’s anticipated decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robbins, No. 13-1339, cert. granted (U.S. April 27, 2015) will have an impact on the progress of TCCWNA cases.  In Spokeo, the Supreme Court is mulling over whether a plaintiff/class representative has standing to assert claims based upon the violation of federal statutes – in that case the Fair Credit Reporting Act – where the plaintiff has not been injured.  If the Court determines that there is no standing if there is no injury, that reasoning may have some applicability to the TCCWNA, which does not require the plaintiff to have even used the service or purchased the product.  In addition, it’s an open question as to whether “prospective consumers” can be included in a putative TCCWNA — at least in federal court in the Third Circuit — under the circuit’s ascertainability requirement:  Can there be “a reliable and administratively feasible mechanism for determining whether putative class members fall within the class definition” [Carrera v. Bayer Corp., 727 F.3d 300, 355 (3d Cir. 2013)],where the class consists of anybody who laid eyes on a website’s terms of use?  But for the forseeable future, ecommerce companies should closely review their terms of use to ensure that they do not run afoul of the TCCWNA.

Share this:
Facebooktwitterlinkedin

Is the Primary Jurisdiction Doctrine Alive Again for “Natural” Defendants?

 ** Ninth Circuit Stays Natural Case In “Food Court” **
maxresdefault

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction is a prudential means to stay or dismiss a party’s claims if the claims are better adjudicated or answered by an administrative agency – it “is concerned with promoting proper relationships between the courts and administrative agencies charged with particular regulatory duties.” Ellis v. Tribune Television Co., 443 F.3d 71, 81 (2d Cir.2006). It is properly applied “whenever enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory scheme, have been placed within the special competence of an administrative body.” Id. When applicable, “a court defers to the agency for advisory findings and either stays the pending action or dismisses it without prejudice” Johnson v. Nyack Hosp., 86 F.3d 8, 11 (2d Cir.1996).

Courts must make a case-by-case determination when considering primary jurisdiction.   In doing so, they generally focus on: (1) whether the question at issue is within the conventional experience of judges or whether it involves technical or policy considerations within the agency’s particular field of expertise; (2) whether the question at issue is particularly within the agency’s discretion; (3) whether there exists a substantial danger of inconsistent rulings; and (4) whether a prior application to the agency has been made. Nat’l Commc’ns Ass’n v. AT & T, 46 F.3d 220, 222 (2d Cir.1995).

There was a time when “primary jurisdiction” was in vogue for “all natural” defendants because of the perception that the FDA was the proper administrative body to answer the question of what sort of ingredients and products qualify as “natural.”  The leading case was Astiana v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc., 905 F. Supp. 2d 1013 (N.D. Cal. 2012). This case involved Hain Celestial’s cosmetics products with labels including “All Natural,” “Pure Natural,” or “Pure, Natural & Organic.” In this case, the putative nationwide class representatives alleged that they had been duped into purchasing Hain’s cosmetics that allegedly contained synthetic and artificial ingredients such as benzyl alcohol.  As is typical in such cases, the plaintiffs sought damages and injunctive relief under a variety of theories including statutory violations under the California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The district court dismissed the case, applying primary jurisdiction, holding that “[in] the absence of any FDA rules or regulations (or even informal policy statements) regarding the use of the word “natural” on cosmetics labels, the court declines to make any independent determination of whether defendants’ use of “natural” was false or misleading. Doing so would “risk undercutting the FDA’s expert judgments and authority.” Other district courts invoked the agency’s primary jurisdiction to wait and see if the FDA intended to offer  regulations regarding the use of the term “natural” (in particular in GMO food cases). In re Gen. Mills, Inc. Kix Cereal Litig., No. CIV–A–12–249 KM, 2013 WL 5943972 (D.N.J. Nov. 1, 2013), Barnes v. Campbell Soup Co., No. C12–05185 JSW, 2013 WL 5530017 (N.D.Cal. July 25, 2013) (GMO food case), Cox v. Gruma Corp., No. 12–CV–6502 YGR, 2013 WL 3828800 (N.D.Cal. July 11, 2013) (GMO case).

Undeterred by the district court’s dismissal, the Plaintiffs in Astiana went on a two pronged attack. They went directly to the FDA seeking guidance on the definition of “natural.”  The FDA responded by letter stating – “cosmetic public health and safety matters are currently fully occupying the resources that FDA has available for proceedings on cosmetics matters” and “proceedings to define ‘natural’ do not fit within [the agency’s] current health and safety priorities.” Plaintiffs also appealed to the Ninth Circuit.  Astiana v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc., 783 F.3d 753, 759 (9th Cir. 2015). The Ninth Circuit held that — while the district’s court primary jurisdiction doctrine decision was not wrong — it should have stayed the matter awaiting an FDA response. Upon remand, the district court revisited the primary jurisdiction argument and, recognizing that the recent FDA letter demonstrated that the FDA has no interest in the subject matter and, therefore,  referral to the FDA would be futile, the court denied defendant’s motion to stay on primary jurisdiction grounds. Astiana v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc., No. 4:11-cv-06342-PJH (N.D. Cal. October 9, 2015) (Dkt. No. 114).

Courts in other jurisdictions have followed this same rejection of the primary jurisdiction doctrine argument made by cosmetic company defendants in “natural” cases. Goldemberg v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., 8 F. Supp. 3d 467, 476 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (“the FDA has not begun to promulgate a rule concerning the term natural in cosmetics . . [i]nstead, it recently declined to make such a determination . . . [t]hus, as the agency is not simultaneously contemplating the same issue . . . this factor weighs against applying the primary jurisdiction doctrine”); Paulino v. Conopco, Inc., No. 14-CV-5145 JG RML, 2015 WL 4895234, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2015); Langan v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., 95 F. Supp. 3d 284, 290 (D. Conn. 2015); Fagan v. Neutrogena Corp., No. 5:13-CV-01316-SVW-OP, 2014 WL 92255, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2014) (“Plaintiffs’ claims are not barred by the doctrine of primary jurisdiction . . . [as the] FDA has affirmed that proceedings to define the term natural in the context of cosmetics do not fit within its current health and safety priorities.”); see also Reid v. GMC Skin Care USA Inc., No. 815CV277BKSCFH, 2016 WL 403497, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2016) (rejecting primary jurisdiction in case alleging that face cream with “DNA repair effect” statements was misleading); Randolph v. J.M. Smucker Co., No. 13-80581-CIV, 2014 WL 1018007, at *6 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 14, 2014).

At the same time that the primary jurisdiction doctrine was being buried with respect to “natural” claims, it remained viable in various food cases, particularly those presenting discrete technical questions, i.e. Backus v. Gen. Mills, Inc., 122 F. Supp. 3d 909, 933 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (primary jurisdiction invoked on question of the amount of trans fat in baked goods that is safe); Saubers v. Kashi Co., 39 F. Supp. 3d 1108 (S.D. Cal. 2014) (primary jurisdiction invoked with respect to “evaporated cane juice” labels) (collecting cases). The basis for primary jurisdiction in particular in the ECJ cases is that that FDA has indicated that it WILL issue regulatory guidance on evaporated cane juice – but not until the end of 2016. See also Draft Guidance for Industry on Ingredients Declared as Evaporated Cane Juice; Reopening of Comment Period; Request for Comments, Data, and Information, 79 Fed.Reg. 12,507 (Mar. 5, 2014).  Most evaporated cane juice cases are currently stayed (or dismissed) see, e.g., Gitson, et al. v. Clover-Stornetta Farms, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-01517-EDL (N.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2016) (extending ECJ stay for an additional 180 days, until August 2016) (Laporte, J.); Swearingen v. Amazon Preservation Partners, Inc., Case No. 13-cv-04402-WHO (N.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2016) (Orrick, J.) (extending ECJ stay and continuing case management conference until July 2016). A few judges have lifted the ECJ stay (impatient at the FDA’s movement) but they appear to be out-liers. See Figy v. Lifeway Foods, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-4828-TEH (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2016), Dkt. No. 57; Swearingen v. Pacific Foods of Oregon, Inc., No. 13-cv-04157 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2015), Dkt. No. 61.

But we digress.  Back to “natural” and a significant development.  In November 2015, the FDA issued a request for comments regarding the use of the term “natural” in connection with food product labeling. See Use of the Term “Natural” in the Labeling of Human Food Products; Request for Information and Comments, 80 Fed. Reg. 69,905 (Nov. 12, 2015)See our previous blog post.  While noteworthy in and of itself, the FDA’s requests for comments also raised the secondary issue of whether the FDA’s new-found interest in potentially defining “natural” with respect to foods  triggers the primary jurisdiction doctrine?   Last week, the Ninth Circuit answered – Yes. In Kane v. Chobani, LLC, No. 14-15670, 2016 WL 1161782, at *1 (9th Cir. Mar. 24, 2016), the circuit court dealt with an appeal from the Northern District of California where buyers of Chobani fruit flavored Greek yogurt filed suit against  the company alleging that its labels and advertising violated California law because the “all natural” yogurt included fruit juice and turmeric.  Before the district court, the plaintiffs had a difficult time articulating why it was plausible to allege that fruit juice and turmeric are unnatural vacillating between the argument that it is unnatural to use these ingredients to color yogurt and the argument that the fruit juices at issue were so heavily processed that they are no longer natural.  Ultimately the district court found that the case warranted dismissal on Rule 9(b) and 12(b)(6) grounds. Kane v. Chobani, LLC, 973 F. Supp. 2d 1120, 1138 (N.D. Cal. 2014).  Plaintiffs appealed on the basis that under primary jurisdiction their case should have been stayed – not dismissed. And the Ninth Circuit agreed,  vacating the dismissal and remanding to the district court under a stay pending resolution of the FDA’s “natural” proceedings. So a win for the plaintiffs in Chobani – but one that defendants will take careful note of – in the Ninth Circuit and beyond.

 

Share this:
Facebooktwitterlinkedin

A Poker Lesson From The Pom Wonderful v. Coca-Cola Co. Cases

iStock_000014677000_Medium

 

** Coca Cola Prevails in false Advertising Case Bought By Pom Wonderful – Trying to Protect its Pomegranate Juice Market – While at the Same Time Settling Class Actions **                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

Pom Wonderful lost its 7 1/2 year battle against Coca-Cola this week after a nine person jury in California found that Coke was not misleading consumers with its Minute Maid division’s “Pomegranate Blueberry Flavored Blend of 5 Juices” which contained only a half-percent of pomegranate and blueberry juice.  Pom Wonderful LLC v. The Coco-Cola Co., No. cv-08-06239-SJO (MJWX) (C.D. Cal. March 21, 2016) (Dkt. 732). Pom had argued that the product’s labeling, which included pictures of all five fruits with the pomegranate dominating (although the apple was pretty darn big too) and the fact that “Flavored Blend of 5 Juices” was in smaller print below “Pomegranate Blueberry” was intended to “hoodwink” consumers into believe that pomegranate and blueberry juices were significant components of the product.  In addition, Pom pointed to the color of Minute Maid’s juice in its clear plastic bottles, which resembled pomegranate juice (i.e., red).  Pom’s attorneys told the jury that Coke leached off of the hard work and money that Pom had invested in growing the pomegranate juice market by creating a cheap juice that Pom’s customers would be tricked into buying due to the cost differential and the belief that they were getting the healthy benefits of pomegranate juice.  Pom sought $77.6 million in lost profits.

Coke’s principal defense was simple — it’s label was accurate and complied with FDA guidelines.  However, it is worth noting that Coke recently settled – subject to preliminary and final court approval — a putative consumer class action, Niloofar Saeidian v. The Coca Cola Company, Case No. 09-cv-06309, which was filed in the Central District of California approximately one year after Pom filed its lawsuit and which made the same deceptive labeling allegations on behalf of a nation-wide class of consumers who purchased the juice.  Interestingly, both the Pom and Saeidian cases are before Judge S. James Otero.  The proposed class action settlement provides for full refunds to class members with proof of purchase (uncapped) and up to two vouchers for replacement products in Coke’s Minute Maid, Simply, Smartwater, Vitaminwater, Vitaminwater Zero, and Honest Tea brands (capped at 200,000 on a “first come, first served” basis).  Coke also agreed to pay the administrative costs of the settlement (est. $400,000), attorney fees and costs not to exceed $700,000, a $5,000 incentive payment to Mr. Saeidian, and to donate $300,000 in product to Feeding America.  Finally, during the pendency of the class action (and the Pom case for that matter), Coke discontinued Minute Maid’s Enhanced Pomegranate Blueberry Flavored Blend of 5 Juices and represented in the settlement that it has no plans to reintroduce it.  Niloofar Saeidian v. The Coca Cola Company, No. 09-cv-06309, (C.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2016) (Dkt. 192).

Does Coke regret settling the class action lawsuit less than a month before its triumph in Pom?  The difference between the results highlights the stark differences between consumer class actions and Lanham Act false advertising cases.  The latter, especially those not involving negative advertising – are notoriously hard on plaintiffs.  First, surveys show that juries say they read labels – word for word – (see Persuasion Strategies National Jury Survey, 2015).  It thus an uphill battle to convince them they have been misled by a label.  Second, if a company dishes it out, it will almost surely have to take it (nobody’s ads are perfect after-all). In Pom, Pom Wonderful’s claim of misleading labeling was met by Coke asserting “unclean hands” — pointing the jury to an 2012 administrative law judge’s decision in a case brought by the FTC against Pom that Pom made unsubstantiated claims that its juice treated, prevented or reduced the risk of heart disease, prostate cancer, and erectile dysfunction (upheld by POM Wonderful, LLC v. F.T.C., 777 F.3d 478 (D.C. Cir. 2015)).  This is likely a second critical underestimate of jurors’ typical behavior that worked against Pom. Most jurors react predictably to a party’s perceived hypocrisy. Third, most advertisements aren’t blatantly (legal term: “ literally”)  false so the question of whether an ad or label is materially deceptive comes into play.  Experts are hired to present bone dry surveys of consumer behavior, markets and perceptions of the offending ad that are subject to methodology challenges and sometimes clash with jurors’ own perceptions:  “Why do we need an expert? Everybody knows what that means?”  These experts’ opinions even conflict with the company’s own beliefs from time to time.  Indeed, Coke’s counsel’s closing argument mocked Pom’s assertion that Minute Maid’s juice stole customers from Pom by quoting from some early “creative briefs” prepared by Pom’s marketing department that Pom’s target audience for certain ads was “health-conscious hypochondriacs,” juxtaposing that audience with Minute Maid’s target market — regular old families.  And fourth, even if a corporate plaintiff successfully navigates these tough proof issues, it is left with the daunting task of proving that it suffered actual injury from its competitor’s ad and the amount of that injury in dollars – no easy task in multi-competitor markets that suffer the slings and arrows of shifting consumer tastes, new market entrants, the next “new thing,” and the fluctuation of the economy as a whole.  Frequently, defense counsel in Lanham Act cases are willing to just poke holes in plaintiffs’ experts’ damage analyses through cross-examination and possibly their own experts’ critiques without proffering alternative damage calculations on the theory that offering alternative numbers is a tacit admission of liability and creates a floor.  Coke eschewed this approach and called an expert who testified that, even accepting some of Pom’s forensic accountant’s premises, Pom’s damages would only be between $886,000 and $9.8 million – not $77.6 million (see also this post on the strategy for damages anchors).  In the end, that tactical decision didn’t matter.  In less than a day of deliberations, the jury determined that Coke’s blended juice did not mislead consumers about the amount of pomegranate juice in the bottle.  Pom Wonderful LLC v. The Coco-Cola Co., No. cv-08-06239-SJO (MJWX) (C.D. Cal. March 21, 2016) (Dkt. 732).

One can assume that Pom went into this Lanham Act lawsuit against Coke with eyes wide open.  Clearly Pom is sincere in its view that its hard work and research funding created the explosive growth in consumer demand for pomegranate juice and its market should not be hijacked by impostors.  Pom had previously been to trial against Ocean Spray and Welch’s making similar Lanham Act claims to the ones asserted against Coke.  In the Ocean Spray case, a two-week trial in the Central District of California at the end of 2011 resulted in a jury verdict that Ocean Spray did not deceptively advertise its “100% Juice Cranberry and Pomegranate” juice after two hours of deliberation.   Pom Wonderful LLC v. Ocean’s Spray Inc., No. 2:09-cv-00565-DDP-R2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2011) (Dkt. 552). The Welch’s case proved a pyrrhic victory for Pom – the Central District of California jury found in 2010 that Welch’s labeling of its juice as “100% Juice White Grape Pomegranate” was literally true but nevertheless deceptive yet concluded that Pom was unable to prove any injury.  Interestingly, Welch’s – like Coke – settled two consolidated consumer class action lawsuits making the same claims as Pom five months after its victory over Pom. Pom Wonderful LLC v. Welch Foods Inc., No. 2:09-cv-00567-AHM-AGR (C.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2010) (Dkt. 374).

In the end, the problem with Pom’s Lanham Act lawsuits – like many such cases – may be the plaintiff.  Jurors are asked to find that the defendant deceived consumers, but then give the money to a competitor – not a particularly satisfying result.  This is obviously not a problem in consumer class actions.  In a Lanham Act case, if the advertising is negative and directly pointed at the competitor or if the advertisement is particularly naughty – for example, Blue Buffalo’s trumpeting that its premium priced dog food contained no byproducts when the company knew that it did (lesson: don’t mess with man’s best friend) – a jury will likely find liability and damages.  But in the more common “literally true but deceptive” case, Lanham claims are a hard sell.  In the triad of Pom cases, the only one in which actual consumers testified as to deception was Welch’s, which might have had something to do with the jury’s finding of deception.                                                                                                                                                                                                             

Share this:
Facebooktwitterlinkedin

No Standing for NFL Superbowl Ticket Class Action Representatives

the beginning of a football match

 

** Third Circuit Affirms That Purported Class Representative Super Bowl Ticket Buyers Do Not Have Standing To Sue For NFL Ticket Practices That “Forced” Them to Buy Scalped Secondary Market Tickets **                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        In 2014 a purported class action representatives purchased tickets to the 2014 Super Bowl held at the Meadowlands Stadium in New Jersey – at a price of $2,000.00 each (even though their face value was around $800.00).  Finkelman v. Nat’l Football League, No. 15-1435, 2016 WL 158507, at *1 (3d Cir. Jan. 14, 2016).  Plaintiff alleged that the NFL distributed 99% of tickets to teams, sponsors and the media and that the shortage of general public tickets caused the inflated price.  Id.  He further alleged that New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act (N.J. Stat. Ann § 56.8-35.1) in particular the provisions that make it unlawful to withhold more than 5% of tickets to an event from the general public – was violated by the NFL’s ticket allocation practices.  Id.  Plaintiff sued on the theory that this alleged violation of New Jersey law caused him to miss out on a face value ticket and thus forced him onto the inflated secondary market – with the difference between the two prices being his “injury.”  Id.  On the NFL’s motion to dismiss, however, the District Court agreed that there was no Article III standing.  Id.  The Third Circuit affirmed – outlining that Article III requires a fairly traceable injury – i.e. “but for” causation – and the court could not say that but for the NFL’s restrictions Plaintiff still would have been able to buy a face value ticket.  Indeed, the court said that “demand for Super Bowl tickets so far exceed

s supply that [Plaintiff’s] probability of obtaining a face-price ticket in a public sale would have been effectively nil regardless of the NFL’s ticketing practices.”  Id. at *8.  Further, the court disagreed that it could determine whether the high market price was caused by the NFL – “[t]o state the problem succinctly: we have no way of knowing whether the NFL’s withholding of tickets would have had the effect of increasing or decreasing prices on the secondary market . . . [w]e can only speculate—and speculation is not enough to sustain Article III standing.”  Id. at 10.  A second purported class representative did not buy a ticket to the Super Bowl – his allegation was that he was dissuaded from doing so because of the high resale price – and that lost opportunity was his “injury”.  Id. at *6.  This position on standing was treated with greater incredulity by the Third Circuit – the court concluding that Plaintiff’s lack of standing is not a hard call: “[i]f the Court were to credit [plaintiff’s] concept of injury, everyone who contemplated buying a Super Bowl ticket but decided against it would have standing to bring a claim under the Ticket Law. Article III is simply not that expansive.”  Id.  With no standing – to either purported class representative – the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal.

 

Share this:
Facebooktwitterlinkedin

The Injunction Conundrum

** Courts Are Inconsistently Grappling With the Question of Whether a Plaintiff Has Standing for an Injunction Prohibiting Misleading Behavior if They are Aware of the Behavior ** . . .                                                                                                                               

An interesting catch-22 exists with respect to injunctive relief in purported consumer class actions in federal court.  If a plaintiff discovers misleading conduct (for example a mislabeled product), her basis for an injunction would be – relief from the company misleading her again!  But if the plaintiff is aware of the false advertising, is it plausible that she would be misled in future?  To quote the old chestnut – “fool me once, shame on you – fool me twice, shame on me.”  By affirmatively pleading the elements of the misleading conduct, doesn’t a plaintiff inherently disqualify  herself from the standing required to seek an injunction in federal court?  This is the argument that won the day in the recent Yakult case in the Central District of California.  Plaintiff in that case, Nicolas Torrent, sued on the allegation that Yakult’s probiotic beverages that claim to have beneficial cultures which “balance [the] digestive system” are misleading because (according to Plaintiff) there is no credible scientific evidence that the probiotics do what Yakult says they do.  Torrent v Yakult U.S.A. Inc., No 8:15-cv-00124-CJC-JCG (C.D. Cal Jan. 27, 2015) (“By definition, healthy people already have a stable digestive health balance of trillions of intestinal bacteria. Yakult, contrary to what defendant advertises, cannot make a healthy person more healthy in terms of digestive health or otherwise.”)  Plaintiff claimed that Yakult violated California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.) and that he was entitled to restitution and injunctive relief.  Id. at ECF No. 32, Second Amended Compl. ¶¶ 14 – 16.  Curiously, though, by the time of the motion for class certification, Plaintiff dropped his demand for restitution or money damages and only asserted a claim for injunctive relief.  Id. at ECF No. 41, Pl.’s Mot. for Class Cert. ¶ 4.  With only the injunction at issue, the lawsuit became a test case of sorts.  In answering the question, the district court was clear that plaintiff did not have standing as there was “[in]sufficient likelihood that [he] will be wronged in a similar way.”  Id. at ECF No. 52, Order (January 5, 2016) citing Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 111 (1983); O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 495-96 (1974) (“Past exposure to illegal conduct does not in itself show a present case or controversy regarding injunctive relief … if unaccompanied by any continuing, present adverse effects.”)  The court noted the split within the Central District of California on the standing issue (see In re ConAgra, 302 F.R.D. 537, 573 – 76 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2014) (collecting cases)) and acknowledged the counter-argument that to deny injunctive relief would upset the enforcement of the UCL – but ultimately decided that it was not the courts’ place to carve out Article III standing exceptions for consumers.  Order at 6 – 8.  On that basis, Rule 23 class certification was denied.  Highlighting the split on this standing issue, a district court in Illinois just a few days later held the opposite.  Leiner v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Co., Inc., No. 15-c-5876, (N.D. Ill. Jan. 12, 2016).  In this case. plaintiff claimed that Johnson & Johnson violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act by labeling and advertising two “Baby Bedtime Bath products” as “clinically proven” to help babies sleep better – when it  allegedly knew the products hadn’t been clinically proven to have that effect. Plaintiff sought to represent a class of Illinois purchasers.  The Illinois court aligned itself with courts that have held that consumers don’t forfeit standing by knowing the basis of their claims observing that, without an exception, consumers could never avail themselves of injunctive relief.

Share this:
Facebooktwitterlinkedin

Do Payment Providers Have to Accommodate Everyone?

** Discrimination Class Action filed in California Alleging That Payment Providers such as Square and PayPal Violated Unruh law for Refusing to Process Merchant Payments for Merchant’s Risky Transactions ** . . .                                                                        

Payment processors such as Square, Inc. and PayPal, Inc have opened up a new world for merchants who can now easily and inexpensively accept payments online and/or by credit card from anyone – anywhere.  The platform, however, is not open to all-comers: the companies have strict policies on what sort of merchants or transactions they will accept – and those that they will not.  For example, Square’s User Agreement prohibits merchants from using their accounts to accept payments for anything “illegal” – but it also prohibits a range of activities that may be legal but raise the risk profile for anyone involved (including the payment processor) such as transactions involving mail order drugs, gambling, firearms, adult material, hate products and drug paraphernalia.  PayPal, Inc’s Acceptable Use Policy is similar, it prohibits using an account for activities that violate any law – but also legal (but legally risky) transactions such as get- rich-quick-schemes, lotteries, sexually orientated material, firearms and offshore banking.  Plaintiff counsel in California have bought a purported class action alleging that such business regulations are “discrimination” under California’s civil rights statute (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51 – 52) (aka “Unruh”).  Abu Maisa Inc., v Flint Mobile Inc., No. 3:15-cv-06338 (N.D. Cal. December 31, 2015) ECF No. 1.  In particular their named plaintiff is a convenience store owner, who, it is alleged, was dissuaded from using Square and PayPal (and other payment providers Flint Mobile, Google, Intuit and Stripe) because plaintiff’s store sells “banned” items such as adult magazines and lottery tickets.  The case is an unusual one, in so far as Unruh cases are typically bought by plaintiff’s who have been discriminated against on the basis of some sort of disability or recognized protected classification (not just on the basis that a plaintiff was denied the right to, in this case, sell adult magazines).  Plaintiff appear to have a hard road ahead of him.  Notwithstanding the broad sweep of Unruh, California courts recognize that businesses may discriminate amongst customers in order to comply with legal requirements or protect business reputation (Harris v. Capital Growth Inv’rs XIV, 805 P.2d 873, 884 (Cal. 1991)) – as long as those regulations are rationally related to the services performed and the facilities provided.  Marina Point, Ltd. v. Wolfson, 640 P.2d 115, 124 (Cal. 1982).  For example, a rental car company can “discriminate” on the basis of age because of the risks involved in renting cars to younger drivers.  Lazar v. Hertz Corp., 82 Cal. Rptr. 2d 368, 373 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999).  Similarly, financial companies can make risk-oriented decisions regarding what customers to deal with and on what terms.  Flower v. Wachovia Mortgage FSB, No. C 09-343 JF HRL, 2009 WL 975811, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2009).  Courts uniformly “decline to second-guess [the defendant’s] business judgment.” Desert Healthcare Dist. v. PacifiCare FHP, Inc., 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 623 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001); Semler v. Gen. Elec. Capital Corp., 127 Cal. Rptr. 3d 794, 798 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011).

Share this:
Facebooktwitterlinkedin