Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, STATE UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES—N.D. Cal.: Consumer must show why deceptive claims about Bromley tea should not be dismissed, (Jul 29, 2014)

By Linda O’Brien, J.D., LL.M.

In a class action against a tea manufacturer for allegedly making deceptive and misleading health nutrient claims on its product labels, the federal district court in San Francisco has ordered a consumer to show cause why the court should not dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or deny class certification to a putative class of purchasers (Clancy v. The Bromley Tea Company, July 28, 2014, Tigar, J.).

Tony Clancy filed a putative class action against The Bromley Tea Company, alleging that the firm made deceptive and misleading health nutrient claims on the labels of its tea products, in violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Unfair Competition Law (UCL). After his sole federal law claim was dismissed, Clancy filed an amended complaint and moved for class certification.

Jurisdiction. The court found that the Clancy failed to establish that the court had subject matter jurisdiction over his claims. Although he demonstrated the parties’ diverse citizenship to assert federal subject matter jurisdiction, Clancy provided no evidence to show the applicable amount in controversy was satisfied or why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining state law claims.

Predominance. Clancy’s motion for class certification did not demonstrate that common questions would predominate over questions affecting only individual members. He failed to allege that California had significant contact to the claims of each class member. Moreover, each nonresident’s claim must be governed by the consumer protection laws of his or her jurisdiction which would defeat predominance.

Ascertainability. Clancy also failed to demonstrate that the proposed classes were ascertainable. He presented no method by which the identities of absent class members may be ascertained or how the court would determine who purchased Bromley tea products during the proposed class period.

Injunctive relief. Finally, Clancy did not demonstrate that he suffered a concrete and particular legal harm and that there was a sufficient likelihood that he would be harmed against in a similar way. He failed to allege that he was likely to suffer harm from purchasing the same product in the future due to the alleged misleading advertising, the court concluded.

The court required Clancy to file a response to this order to show cause within 21 days.

The case is No. 12-cv-03003-JST.

Attorneys: Ben F. Pierce Gore (Pratt & Associates) for Tony Clancy. William Lewis Stern (Morrison & Foerster LLP) for The Bromley Tea Co., Eastern Tea Corp., and Bromley Products Corp.

Companies: The Bromley Tea Company; Eastern Tea Corp.; Bromley Products Corp.

Cases: StateUnfairTradePractices CaliforniaNews