Heagney v. John Paul Mitchell Systems

Background

The plaintiffs sought certification of a class involving JPMS hair-care products branded as Paul Mitchell, Clean Beauty, Tea Tree, MITCH, Awapuhi Wild Ginger, Neuro, or MVRCK. Their claims concerned representations about animal testing, including “no animal testing,” “JPMS does not conduct or endorse animal testing,” and “pioneer in cruelty-free haircare.” They also moved for leave to amend their claims, and JPMS moved to exclude the testimony of the plaintiffs’ expert, Gareth Macartney.

Class Certification

The court granted class certification, but for a narrower class than the plaintiffs proposed. The certified class consists of all California residents who, between May 1, 2015, and January 1, 2020, purchased directly from JPMS or through an authorized third-party retailer or salon a JPMS hair-care product carrying one of the specified brands. Randall Heagney was appointed class representative.

The court declined to certify a nationwide class because state warranty and consumer-protection laws materially differ. It also declined to certify subclasses based on abstract reliance or non-reliance theories, or subclasses for states where other plaintiffs lived, because the plaintiffs had not brought claims under those states’ laws.

Because Heagney was the only named plaintiff to whom California law applied, the class claims could proceed only as to the “no animal testing” statement and the substantially similar “JPMS does not conduct or endorse animal testing” statement. The court excluded the “pioneer in cruelty-free haircare” statement because the plaintiffs did not allege that Heagney saw it, the statement was not used until 2020, and it was too different from the other statements. The court therefore ended the class period in January 2020.

The court rejected JPMS’s remaining challenges to certification. Although the evidence did not establish adequate classwide exposure to the marketing statements, the court found evidence that the targeted statements were sufficiently visible and consistently appeared on product labels. The court also found sufficient evidence of materiality to infer reliance on a classwide basis, found class counsel adequate, and concluded that “no animal testing” had a sufficiently fixed meaning for a classwide determination of whether the statement would mislead a reasonable consumer.

The court further concluded that the plaintiffs had shown that damages could be measured on a classwide basis. Although Macartney’s models were not complete, the court found that he had identified relevant variables, explained how he would obtain needed data, described how he would develop a survey population, and accounted for supply-side factors using actual market prices and sales data.

Leave to Amend

The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend. It found that amendment would substantially prejudice JPMS because extending the class period by 17 years would require additional discovery into earlier product statements and another round of class-certification briefing. Adding claims under three additional states’ laws would likewise require another class-certification motion concerning the manageability of a trial involving four states’ laws. The court also found that the plaintiffs unnecessarily waited three months after obtaining the information they said justified amendment before seeking leave.

Motion to Exclude Expert

The court denied JPMS’s motion to exclude Macartney’s testimony. The court said JPMS’s arguments substantially overlapped with its unsuccessful challenge to the plaintiffs’ damages models. It also rejected JPMS’s objection to Macartney’s literature review because a damages expert may assume the merits of a case when developing damages analysis.

Disposition

Class certification was granted for the narrower California class described above. The plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend was denied, and JPMS’s motion to exclude the plaintiffs’ expert was denied.