Raskin v. Bausch & Lomb Inc.

Background

Valerie Raskin brought a proposed consumer class action against Bausch & Lomb Inc. concerning PreserVision AREDS 2, a nutritional supplement intended to prevent or slow the progression of age-related macular degeneration. The complaint alleged that the supplement’s recommended daily dose contained 80 milligrams of zinc—more than 700% of the stated recommended dietary allowance of eight milligrams per day.

Raskin alleged that she began purchasing and taking PreserVision twice daily in July 2018, as directed by the label. Her treating neurologist later informed her that excess zinc from the supplement caused her copper deficiency myelopathy and related symptoms. Raskin asserted one claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law, alleging that Bausch & Lomb’s marketing was unfair, unconscionable, fraudulent, and deceptive because it failed to warn about significant risks of physical injury. She sought relief based on the amounts she and proposed class members paid for the supplement.

Before filing this case, Raskin filed an earlier individual action against Bausch & Lomb. The court stated that the two cases involved the same claims concerning the alleged failure to warn consumers about risks associated with excess zinc and that the cases had been related for joint consideration.

Motion and analysis

Bausch & Lomb moved to dismiss, arguing that Raskin’s Unfair Competition Law claim was inadequately pleaded, that her request for equitable relief could not stand, and that the later-filed proposed class action improperly split claims from the earlier individual action. The court considered only the claim-splitting argument because it found that issue dispositive.

Claim splitting generally prevents a plaintiff from maintaining two separate lawsuits in the same court against the same defendant concerning the same subject matter. The court applied a test asking whether the later suit involved the same causes of action and the same parties or their legal equivalents. To determine whether the causes of action were the same, the court examined whether the cases arose from the same facts and could conveniently be tried together.

The court found that the two cases shared the same core facts: the product involved, the risks allegedly posed to consumers, and the alleged failure to warn. The cases also raised indistinguishable medical and scientific questions about the risks associated with the supplement’s recommended dosage, meaning that the evidence would be essentially the same. The court rejected Raskin’s argument that the cases were different because the earlier action sought personal-injury damages while this action sought restitution under the Unfair Competition Law. Different legal theories and remedies did not change the fundamental factual identity of the lawsuits.

Disposition

The court declined Raskin’s request to consolidate the two cases. It stated that consolidation had previously been found impractical and that Raskin could have brought her claims in one lawsuit but instead pursued parallel litigation.

The court granted Bausch & Lomb’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed Raskin’s individual claims in the later-filed proposed class action with prejudice. It dismissed the proposed class’s claims without prejudice to litigation by another proposed class representative. The court also set a status conference for August 14, 2025, to discuss plaintiffs’ counsel’s plan for the next steps.