Howard v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc.
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:22-cv-00527
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Howard v. Hain Celestial Group, Judge Chhabria requested briefing before deciding whether to certify the proposed class.
The plaintiffs and Hain Celestial Group, Inc., particularly their positions concerning certification of the proposed class.
What happened
In Howard v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc., the court ordered the parties to submit supplemental letter briefs about the proposed class in claims involving allegedly misleading nutrient-content statements on products.
The court tentatively viewed the proposed class as too broad because it included parents who bought products for children who were not under two. It also questioned whether the class could be narrowed to parents who bought the products for children under two, because the plaintiffs had not shown how large that group was for purposes of calculating damages or refunds.
The court also asked whether reliance concerns and messages saying the products were not for children under two would prevent class certification, and whether any renewed request for certification should be allowed. Judge Vince Chhabria did not decide class certification in this order; the letter briefs were due within seven days and could not include new evidence.
The detailed version
- Howard v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc. · No. 3:22-cv-00527
- Vince Chhabria
- Jan. 23, 2024
Background
The court ordered the parties to file supplemental letter briefs concerning plaintiffs' proposed class in claims based on alleged fraud and an alleged unlawful business practice under California's Unfair Competition Law. The order concerned Docket No. 98.
Issues Identified by the Court
The court stated that it was tentatively of the view that the proposed class for the fraud-based claims was overbroad because it included parents who purchased products for children who were not under two. The court tentatively viewed the proposed class for the unlawful claim the same way. According to plaintiffs' theory, the products were unlawful because they were misbranded. The court stated that the alleged misbranding was injurious because it risked misleading parents purchasing the products for children under two, and questioned whether a class containing a substantial percentage of people who were not at risk of being misled could be certified.
The court also tentatively stated that, if the broad class could not be certified, it could not simply limit the class to parents who purchased the products for children under two on the existing record. The court noted that plaintiffs had not provided a basis for determining the size of that narrower class, which the court said would be necessary to present a damages or restitution calculation to the jury.
Finally, the court asked whether denial of class certification, if that occurred, should be without prejudice to a renewed motion. It directed the parties to address whether plaintiffs could obtain certification of a narrower class, including defendant's argument that reliance—the requirement that class members were influenced by the alleged misrepresentation—could prevent certification. The court identified the possibility that a significant portion of the class saw a label or online retail message stating that the products were not for children under two.
Order
The court ordered supplemental letter briefs addressing these issues and the fairness of allowing plaintiffs another opportunity to seek class certification. The briefs were due within seven days, could not exceed seven single-spaced pages excluding signature lines, and could discuss only evidence already in the record; the parties could not submit new evidence. Judge Vince Chhabria did not grant or deny class certification in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.