Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Forcellati v. Hyland's, Inc.

United States District Court for the Central District of California

April 9, 2014, Decided; April 9, 2014, Filed

CV 12-1983-GHK (MRWx)



Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order re: Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification [Dkt. No. 82]

This matter is before us on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification ("Motion"). We have considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the Motion, including the Parties' supplemental briefing, and deem this matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument. See L.R. 7-15. As the Parties are familiar with the facts, we will repeat them only as necessary. Accordingly, we rule as follows:

I. Background

On December 7, 2012, Plaintiffs Enzo Forcellati and Lisa Roemmich ("Plaintiffs") filed their Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint ("Complaint"), which principally alleges that Defendants uniformly misrepresent that their homeopathic products provide fast, safe, and effective relief from cold and flu symptoms. Alleging "homeopathy is pseudoscience," Plaintiffs contend that the cold and flu products are actually "nothing more than sweetened, flavored water with . . . highly diluted concentrations of the products'  [*2] so-called 'active ingredients.'" (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 15, 19).

Based on these allegations, Plaintiffs asserted the following claims: (1) violation of Magnuson-Moss Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301, et seq.; (2) unjust enrichment; (3) breach of express warranty; (4) breach of implied warranty; (5) violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act ("NJCFA"), § 58:8-1, et seq.; (6) violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); (7) violation of California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"); (8) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); and (9) violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA"), Mo. Ann. Stat. §§ 407.010, et seq. On June 1, 2012, we dismissed Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim. [Dkt. No. 27].

Plaintiffs now seek to certify a class for the remaining claims. The proposed nationwide class would consist of "all persons in the United States who purchased any of six Hyland's children's cold and flu products": (1) Cold 'n Cough 4 Kids, (2) Cough Syrup with 100% Natural Honey 4 Kids, (3) Sniffles 'n Sneezes 4 Kids, (4) Cold Relief Strips 4 Kids with Zinc, (5) Complete Flu Care 4 Kids,1 and (6) Nighttime Cold 'n Cough 4 Kids. (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 82). In addition,  [*3] Plaintiff Forcellati seeks to represent a New Jersey-only NJCFA subclass, and Roemmich seeks to represent a Missouri-only MMPA subclass. Plaintiffs seek certification under both Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3).

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50600 *; 2014 WL 1410264

Enzo Forcellati, et al. v. Hyland's, Inc., et al.

Prior History: Forcellati v. Hyland's, Inc., 876 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91393 (C.D. Cal., June 1, 2012)


products, Plaintiffs', class member, consumers, ascertainability, cold, class action, class certification, predominance, certify, diluted, flu, absent class members, circumstances, fraudulent, commonality, ingredients, membership, adequacy, injunctive relief, named plaintiff, homeopathic, inaccurate, aggregate, impaired, symptoms, records, misrepresentations, certification, allegations

Civil Procedure, Class Actions, Class Members, General Overview, Federal & State Interrelationships, Choice of Law, Governmental Interests, Special Proceedings, Certification of Classes, Prerequisites for Class Action, Remedies, Damages, Adequacy of Representation, Commonality, Typicality, Predominance, Superiority, Justiciability, Standing, Antitrust & Trade Law, Consumer Protection, Constitutional Law, The Judiciary, Case or Controversy