Mueller v. Puritan's Pride, Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs renewed their request to certify a class of California residents who purchased vitamins or supplements from Puritan’s Pride under “buy-one-get-one-free” promotions. They alleged that the promotions were deceptive because the price of the supposedly purchased product included the cost of the products described as free, so consumers did not receive a genuine discount.

The remaining claims were under California’s Unfair Competition Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The court stated that earlier summary-judgment rulings had limited the possible remedies to actual damages under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act and injunctive relief under the Unfair Competition Law. The court also reiterated that damages under California Business and Professions Code section 17537 and restitution were unavailable in this case.

Rule 23(b)(3) Class for Damages

The court found that the proposed class satisfied the requirements concerning numerosity, typicality, and adequacy. It also found that common evidence could establish whether Puritan’s Pride’s buy-one-get-one promotions were likely to mislead an objectively reasonable consumer. The same promotions, catalogs, online communications, company research, testimony, and expert evidence could address materiality and reliance across the class.

The court reached a different conclusion about damages. Plaintiffs proposed an “expected discount” model that assigned a percentage discount to each purchase and used that percentage to calculate actual damages. The court found that the model was not supported by the consumer evidence, did not reliably measure the value of the alleged misrepresentations, and could produce damages exceeding what a consumer paid. Because plaintiffs had not shown that damages could be calculated reasonably accurately across the class, the court denied certification under Rule 23(b)(3).

Rule 23(b)(2) Class for Injunctive Relief

The court granted certification under Rule 23(b)(2) for injunctive relief. It found that the plaintiffs satisfied the applicable class requirements and sought uniform relief against a practice generally applicable to the class: discontinuation of Puritan’s Pride’s allegedly false buy-one-get-one prices.

The court also found that the plaintiffs had standing to seek an injunction. Their declarations and testimony indicated that they would consider purchasing Puritan’s Pride products in the future if the pricing and sales offers were not deceptive. The certified class consisted of California residents who purchased defendants’ products under a buy-one-get-one promotion after October 14, 2021.

Expert Motion

Puritan’s Pride moved to strike portions of Dr. Larry Compeau’s expert report concerning corporate intent, causation, deception, and related subjects. The court denied without prejudice that request because it had not relied on the challenged opinions and declined to decide the objections at that stage. The court stated that it could revisit the objections later.

Conclusion and Further Proceedings

The court appointed Penelope Mueller, Meg Larson, Diane Cabrera, and Mary Ludolph-Aliaga as class representatives. It appointed Marlin & Saltzman, LLP, the Law Offices of W. Hansult, and Vision Legal, Inc. as class counsel. The court set a status conference, directed the parties to submit proposed dates for the final pretrial conference and trial, and referred the case to Magistrate Judge Hixon for a settlement conference.