Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ADVERTISING—N.D. Cal.: Class claims sour in Mott’s apple juice case, certification denied, (Dec 4, 2014)

By Greg Hammond, J.D.

Mott’s LLP successfully evaded class certification of claims that the juice maker mislabeled certain apple juice products with the statement, “No Sugar Added.” In denying class certification, the federal district court in San Francisco determined that the consumer bringing the action failed to provide any evidence that restitution damages can feasibly and efficiently be calculated (Rahman v. Mott’s LLP, December 3, 2014, Illston, S.).

Background. Mohammed Rahman filed a class action suit against Mott’s, alleging that he purchased the company’s Original 100% Apple Juice after reading and relying on its “No Sugar Added” labeling. He argued that he would not have purchased as much of the product if it did not contain the “No Sugar Added” statement. After the court partially granted summary judgment in favor of Mott’s, Rahman moved for class certification on his California Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and breach of quasi-contract claims, which were premised on the notion that the use of the “No Sugar Added” statement on the juice product constituted mislabeling under California’s Sherman Law and FDA regulations.

Predominance. The court first determined that Rahman met the numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Although the court agreed with Mott’s that defining the class period to include long stretches of time when the challenged statement did not appear on the label would raise ascertainability concerns, it found that the class could be redefined.

Nevertheless, Rahman failed to satisfy the predominance requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) by demonstrating (1) that damages were capable of measurement on a class-wide basis; and (2) that there was a nexus between his theory of liability and his method of proving damages. The proper measure of damages for UCL and quasi-contract claims, according to the court, is restitution. However, because Rahman failed to present any evidence that restitution damages could feasibly and efficiently be calculated once the common liability questions are adjudicated, he did not meet the predominance requirement. The court was unwilling to certify a liability-only class under Rule 23(c)(4), noting that Rahman did not demonstrate why a bifurcated proceeding would be more efficient or desirable.

The case number is 13-cv-03482-SI.

Attorneys: Jordan L. Lurie (Capstone Law APC ) for Mohammed Rahman. Kevin Marshall Sadler (Baker Botts LLP) for Mott's LLP.

Companies: Mott's LLP

Cases: Advertising StateUnfairTradePractices CaliforniaNews