Pfizer Inc. v. Superior Court
Decision Date | 25 February 2010 |
Docket Number | No. B188106.,B188106. |
Citation | 182 Cal.App.4th 622 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | PFIZER INC., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; STEVE GALFANO, Real Party in Interest. |
Defendant Pfizer Inc. (Pfizer), the manufacturer of Listerine mouthwash, seeks a writ of mandate to overturn respondent superior court's November 22, 2005 order certifying a class action filed by plaintiff and real party in interest Steve Galfano (Galfano). The complaint, brought pursuant to the unfair competition law (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.)1 and the false advertising law (FAL) (§ 17500 et seq.), alleges Pfizer marketed Listerine in a misleading manner by representing the use of Listerine can replace the use of dental floss in reducing plaque and gingivitis.
The trial court certified a class of "all persons who purchased Listerine, in California, from June 2004 through January 7, 2005." In our previous decision in this matter, filed July 11, 2006, we granted Pfizer's petition for writ of mandate, concluding the trial court's ruling, which certified a class consisting of all persons who purchased Listerine in California during a six-month period, was overbroad.
The Supreme Court granted review. On August 19, 2009, the Supreme Court transferred the matter back to this court with directions that we vacate our decision and reconsider the matter in light of In re Tobacco II Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298 [93 Cal.Rptr.3d 559, 207 P.3d 20] (Tobacco II). Having done so, we conclude Tobacco II does not require a different disposition herein. We again conclude the class is overbroad and grant Pfizer's petition.
On January 11, 2005, Galfano filed a consumer action against Pfizer in his individual capacity and on behalf of all others similarly situated, based upon Pfizer's alleged misrepresentations and failure to disclose material information in the marketing, labeling, advertising and sale of Listerine mouthwash. Galfano pled that Pfizer advertised and promoted Listerine in a misleading manner by indicating the use of Listerine can replace the use of dental floss in reducing plaque and gingivitis. The complaint asserted causes of action for breach of express warranty, false advertising under section 17500 and unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices under section 17200.2
With respect to the class action allegations, Galfano alleged he represented "[a]ll persons who purchased Listerine, in California, from approximately June of 2004 to the date of judgment in this action...."
On September 9, 2005, Galfano filed a motion for class certification. Galfano sought to certify the following class: "All persons who purchased Listerine with labels that state `as effective as floss,' in California, from June 28, 2004 through January 7, 2005 (`the Class Period')."
In seeking class certification, Galfano contended the class is ascertainable, the class is so numerous as to render joinder impracticable, an overwhelming community of interests exists among the class, the class representative has claims typical of the class, and the named plaintiff and his counsel adequately represent the class.
Pfizer opposed class certification, arguing the case is replete with factual issues that only can be determined upon individual inquiry of each class member, and which individual inquiries predominate over any common issues. Pfizer enumerated those issues as follows: whether each class member saw or read a label; if so, which of the labels was seen or read; whether the consumer was deceived or misled by, or relied on, the label; if so, whether that was part of the bargain and caused the consumer to buy Listerine; if so, whether the consumer suffered injury in fact and lost money or property as a result of the alleged deception or reliance; and if so, the amount of damages or restitution, given that prices vary and most consumers will not have records of the price(s) they paid.
Pfizer reasoned a consumer may have purchased Listerine not because of any alleged deception "but because he was brand loyal, he wanted a breath freshener, his dentist recommended it, due to a price promotion, or because the consumer read the label's admonition to `floss daily' or `not a replacement for floss' and did not take away any alleged deceptive message, each of which is an individual issue that cannot be resolved on a class-wide basis."
After hearing the matter, the trial court issued an order on November 22, 2005, certifying a broad class, on an opt-out basis, consisting "of all persons who purchased Listerine, in California, from June 2004 through January 7, 2005."
In its written ruling, the trial court noted "[w]hile Proposition 64 amended [section] 17204's standing requirements to prosecute UCL claims (by mandating that a private party suffer an `injury in fact' and lose money or property as a result of the practice), whether the standing requirements for class members also changed under the UCL is an open issue." (Italics added.)
The trial court reserved jurisdiction to modify the class definition, decertify the class, or replace Galfano with a new class representative. In certifying the class, the trial court also severed the breach of warranty claim, pending determination of the viability of the UCL claims in subsequent phases of the proceedings.
The trial court also expressed numerous reservations concerning the remedies available to the class. Specifically,
Despite its stated reservations, the trial court certified the class in accordance with Galfano's broad definition.
On December 29, 2005, Pfizer filed the instant petition for writ of mandate, seeking vacation of the trial court's order and entry of a new order denying class certification.
This court issued an order to show cause.3
In an opinion filed July 11, 2006, we addressed, inter alia, whether each member of the putative class asserting a claim under the UCL or the FAL must, in the language of Proposition 64, have suffered injury in fact and lost money or property as a result of such violation, or whether this standing requirement is only applicable to the class representative or named plaintiff.
We concluded: ...
We further concluded
Further, "inherent in Proposition 64's requirement that a plaintiff suffered `injury in fact ... as a result of' the fraudulent business practice or false advertising (§§ 17204, 17535, italics added) is that a plaintiff actually relied on the false or misleading misrepresentation or advertisement in entering into the transaction in issue."
We concluded the trial court's ruling, which certified a class consisting of all persons who purchased Listerine in California during a six-month period, was overbroad. We granted the relief requested.
On November 1, 2006, the Supreme Court granted review in this matter and ordered briefing deferred pending its...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Tobacco Cases II
...been acquired by means ’ that are violative of the UCL ." ( Id. at p. 532 , 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 463, italics added; Pfizer Inc. v. Superior Court (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 622, 633 [class certification improper when "with respect to ... a majority of class members, there is no doubt Pfizer did not......
-
Cholakyan v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC
...rather than a mere factual nexus between the business's conduct and the consumer's injury); Pfizer Inc. v. Superior Court, 182 Cal.App.4th 622, 630, 105 Cal.Rptr.3d 795 (2010) (analyzing the impact of Proposition 64 on UCL claims and noting that a plaintiff “proceeding on a claim of misrepr......
-
Viggiano v. Hansen Natural Corp.
...a violation of the UCL. Kasky, 27 Cal.4th at 949–50, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 296, 45 P.3d 243; see also Pfizer Inc. v. Superior Court, 182 Cal.App.4th 622, 630 n. 4, 105 Cal.Rptr.3d 795 (2010). 304. Whether Viggiano's Claims are Preempted Viggiano's claims are based on a contention that the labelin......
-
Brazil v. Dole Food Co.
...1091–92 (C.D.Cal.2010) (same). In addition, restitution is already a remedy for Brazil's UCL claim. See Pfizer Inc. v. Super. Ct., 182 Cal.App.4th 622, 631, 105 Cal.Rptr.3d 795 (2010); Colgan v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 135 Cal.App.4th 663, 694, 38 Cal.Rptr.3d 36 (2006). Therefore, any ......
-
Ninth Circuit Reverses Class Certification In Joint Supplement Case Because Not All Class Members Saw Misrepresentation
...(CLRA and UCL); Fairbanks v. Farmers New World Life Ins. Co., 197 Cal. App. 4th 544, 562 (2011) (UCL); Pfizer Inc. v. Super. Ct., 182 Cal. App. 4th 622, 629-30 & n.4, 631-32 (2010) (UCL and FAL), and Cohen v. DirecTV, Inc., 178 Cal. App. 4th 966, 980-81 (2009) (UCL and Because of the ge......
-
'Brinker v. Superior Court': What It Means For Class Action Defendants Generally
...have denounced "overbroad" classes, and so too have at least two California appellate courts. See e.g., Pfizer Inc. v. Sup.Ct., 182 Cal. App. 4th 622, 631 (Cal. App. 2010); Sevidal v. Target Corp. 189 Cal. App. 4th 905, 925 (Cal. App. Brinker marks the first time the Supreme Court has weigh......
-
California Strengthens the Obligation to Notify Regarding Possible Default
...212 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1089.45. Ibid., citing In re Tobacco II Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298, 311, Pfizer Inc. v. Superior Court (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 622, 629, and Millview County Water Dist. v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 759, 769.46. Ibid.47. Ibid.48. Shapell, 85......