`
`Jonathan Shub (CA Bar #237708)
`Kevin Laukaitis*
`KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
`1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`Tel: 215-238-1700
`Email: jshub@kohnswift.com
`klaukaitis@kohnswift.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class
`[Additional Counsel Listed on Signature Page]
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`MICHELENE COLETTE and
`LETICIA SHAW, individually and on
`behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`Civil Action
`No.:__________________
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`v.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`CV SCIENCES, INC., a California
`Corporation,
`
`Defendant.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiffs Michelene Colette and Leticia Shaw (collectively, “Plaintiffs”),
`
`through their undersigned attorneys, Barbat, Mansour & Suciu PLLC, Kohn, Swift
`
`& Graf, P.C. and Greg Coleman Law PC, brings this Class Action Complaint
`
`against Defendant CV Sciences, Inc. (“Defendant”), individually and on behalf of
`
`1
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-10227-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 12/03/19 Page 2 of 36 Page ID #:2
`
`all others similarly situated, and complain and allege upon personal knowledge as
`
`to themselves and their own acts and experiences and, as to all other matters, upon
`
`information and belief, including investigation conducted by their attorneys:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is a civil class action brought individually by Plaintiffs on behalf
`
`of consumers who purchased Defendant’s “CBD Sprays”, “CBD Oil Drops”,
`
`“CBD Gummies”, “CBD Capsules”, and “CBD Softgels” (collectively the “CBD
`
`Products” or the “Products”)1, all of which are promoted as products containing
`
`cannabidiol (CBD), for personal use and not for resale.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant’s Products, however, are illegal to sell.
`
`Defendant formulates, manufactures, advertises, and sells the CBD
`
`Products throughout the United States, including in the State of California and
`
`Arizona.
`
`4.
`
`The CBD (cannabidiol) Product market is a multibillion-dollar business
`
`enterprise that is lucrative for its market participants and is expected to further
`
`expand into a $16 billion-dollar industry by 2025.2
`
`1 The Products contain numerous different flavors and dosages.
`
`2 https://www.forbes.com/sites/irisdorbian/2019/03/12/cbd-market-could-pull-in-16-bln-by-
`2025-says-study/#69e764bb3efd Last Visited November 30, 2019
`
`2
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-10227-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 12/03/19 Page 3 of 36 Page ID #:3
`
`5. With knowledge of growing consumer demand for CBD Products,
`
`Defendant has intentionally marketed and sold illegal CBD products.
`
`6.
`
`Defendant’s multiple and prominent systematic mislabeling of the
`
`Products form a pattern of unlawful and unfair business practices that harms the
`
`public.
`
`7.
`
`Accordingly, Plaintiffs and each of the Class members have suffered an
`
`injury in fact caused by the false, fraudulent, unfair, deceptive, and misleading
`
`practices as set forth herein, and seek compensatory damages and injunctive relief.
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiffs bring this suit to halt the unlawful sales and marketing of the
`
`CBD Products by Defendant and for damages she sustained as a result. Given the
`
`massive quantities of the Products sold all over the country, this class action is the
`
`proper vehicle for addressing Defendant’s misconduct and for attaining needed relief
`
`for those affected.
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiffs and each of the Class members accordingly suffered an injury
`
`in fact caused by the false, fraudulent, unfair, deceptive, and misleading practices set
`
`forth herein, and seek compensatory damages, statutory damages, and declaratory
`
`and injunctive relief.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`10.
`
`This Court has original jurisdiction over this controversy pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1332(d). The amount
`
`in controversy in this class action exceeds
`
`3
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-10227-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 12/03/19 Page 4 of 36 Page ID #:4
`
`$5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and there are numerous Class members
`
`who are citizens of states other than Defendant’s state of citizenship.
`
`11.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant in this matter. The
`
`acts and omissions giving rise to this action occurred in the state of California.
`
`Defendant has been afforded due process because it has, at all times relevant to this
`
`matter,
`
`individually or
`
`through its
`
`agents,
`
`subsidiaries, officers
`
`and/or
`
`representatives, operated, conducted, engaged in and carried on a business venture
`
`in this state and/or maintained an office or agency in this state, and/or marketed,
`
`advertised, distributed and/or sold products, committed a statutory violation within
`
`this state related to the allegations made herein, and caused injuries to Plaintiff and
`
`putative Class Members, which arose out of the acts and omissions that occurred in
`
`the state of California, during the relevant time period, at which time Defendant was
`
`engaged in business activities in the state of California.
`
`12. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) and
`
`(c) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s
`
`claims occurred in this District and because Defendant transacts business and/or has
`
`agents within this District and has intentionally availed itself of the laws and markets
`
`within this district.
`
`4
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-10227-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 12/03/19 Page 5 of 36 Page ID #:5
`
`PARTIES
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff Michelene Colette is a citizen of Arizona who resides in
`
`Oracle, Arizona.
`
`Plaintiff purchased Defendant’s CBD Spray product from
`
`Defendant’s CBD sales representative in New York.
`
`Plaintiff purchased
`
`Defendant’s CBD Spray approximately two years ago for approximately $60.
`
`If
`
`Plaintiff knew the Products were not legally sold in the United States, Plaintiff would
`
`have not purchased them.
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiff Leticia Shaw is a citizen of California who resides in Los
`
`Angeles, California. On September 27, 2018, Plaintiff Shaw purchased Defendant’s
`
`CBD Oil
`
`Softgels
`
`15mg Gold
`
`Formula
`
`from Defendant’s website,
`
`https://pluscbdoil.com/, for a total cost of $90.53, including tax and shipping.
`
`If
`
`Plaintiff knew the Products were not legally sold in the United States, Plaintiff would
`
`have not purchased them.
`
`15. Defendant CV Sciences, Inc. is a California corporation with its
`
`principal place of business at 10070 Barnes Canyon Rd., San Diego, CA 92121.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`16. At all relevant
`
`times, Defendant has marketed its Products in a
`
`consistent and uniform manner. Defendant sells the Products in all 50 states on its
`
`website and through various distributors and sales channels.
`
`5
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-10227-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 12/03/19 Page 6 of 36 Page ID #:6
`
`DEFENDANT’S ILLEGAL PRODUCTS
`
`17. On November 22, 2019, the United States Food & Drug Administration
`
`sent roughly 15 Warning Letters discussing numerous violations of CBD products,
`
`including but not limited to; Dietary Supplement Labeling, Unapproved New Drugs,
`
`Misbranded Drugs, Adulterated Human Foods, Unapproved New Animal Drugs,
`
`and Adultered Animal Foods. All of these violations of the Food, Drug and
`
`Cosmetic Act make CBD products illegal to sell.3
`
`Dietary Supplement Labeling
`
`18. All of Defendant’s Products are mislabeled as Dietary Supplements or
`
`contain the illegal dietary ingredient CBD. Every product contains a Supplement
`
`Facts section on the back of the container which is reserved for dietary
`
`supplements and explicitly state “Dietary Supplement” on the front of the
`
`packaging:
`
`3 See https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-warns-15-companies-illegally-
`selling-various-products-containing-cannabidiol-agency-
`details?utm_campaign=112519_Statement_FDA%20warns%20companies%20for%20illegally%
`20selling%20various%20products%20containing%20cannabidiol&utm_medium=email&utm_so
`urce=Eloqua Last visited November 27, 2019.
`
`6
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-10227-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 12/03/19 Page 7 of 36 Page ID #:7
`
`7
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-10227-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 12/03/19 Page 8 of 36 Page ID #:8
`
`19.
`
`The FDA has stated that CBD may not be labeled as a dietary
`
`ingredient or legally be contained within a dietary supplement4:
`
`4 See https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/what-you-need-know-and-what-were-
`working-find-out-about-products-containing-cannabis-or-cannabis
`Last Visited November 27, 2019.
`
`8
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-10227-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 12/03/19 Page 9 of 36 Page ID #:9
`
`20. Defendant’s Products cannot be dietary supplements because they do
`
`not meet the definition of a dietary supplement under section 201(ff) of the FD&C
`
`Act, 21 U.S.C. 321(ff). The FDA has concluded, based on available evidence, that
`
`CBD products are excluded from the dietary supplement definition under sections
`
`201(ff)(3)(B)(i) and (ii) of the FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C. 321(ff)(3)(B)(i) and (ii).
`
`Under those provisions, if an article (such as CBD) is an active ingredient in a drug
`
`product that has been approved under section 505 of the FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C.
`
`355, or has been authorized for investigation as a new drug for which substantial
`
`clinical investigations have been instituted and for which the existence of such
`
`investigations has been made public, then products containing that substance are
`
`outside the definition of a dietary supplement.5 There is an exception if the
`
`5 CBD is the active ingredient in the approved drug product Epidiolex. Furthermore, the
`existence of substantial clinical investigations regarding CBD has been made public. For
`example, two such substantial clinical investigations include GW Pharmaceuticals’
`investigations regarding Sativex and Epidiolex. (See Sativex Commences US Phase II/III
`Clinical Trial in Cancer PainExternal Link Disclaimer and GW Pharmaceuticals Receives
`Investigational New Drug (IND) from FDA for Phase 2/3 Clinical Trial of Epidiolex in the
`Treatment of Dravet SyndromeExternal Link Disclaimer). FDA considers a substance to be
`“authorized for investigation as a new drug” if it is the subject of an Investigational New Drug
`
`9
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-10227-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 12/03/19 Page 10 of 36 Page ID #:10
`
`substance was “marketed as” a dietary supplement or as a conventional food before
`
`the new drug investigations were authorized; however, based on the evidence
`
`available to the FDA, the FDA has concluded that this is not the case for
`
`CBD. The FDA is not aware of any evidence that would call into question its
`
`current conclusion that CBD products are excluded from the dietary supplement
`
`definition under sections 201(ff)(3)(B)(i) and (ii) of the FD&C Act.
`
`Sublingual Delivery System
`
`21. Defendant’s Spray product directs consumers to spray the CBD product
`
`in mouth and swish around for a specific amount of time:
`
`See https://pluscbdoil.com/cbd-product/cbd-oil-spray/ Last visited November 27,
`
`2019.
`
`22.
`
`The FD&C Act defines the term “dietary supplement” in section
`
`201(ff)(2)(A)(i) of the FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C. 321(ff)(2)(A)(i), as a product that is
`
`“intended for ingestion.” Because sublingual products are intended to enter the
`
`body directly through the skin or mucosal tissues, they are not intended for
`
`application (IND) that has gone into effect. Under 21 CFR 312.2, unless a clinical investigation
`meets the limited criteria in that regulation, an IND is required for all clinical investigations of
`products that are subject to section 505 of the FD&C Act.
`
`10
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-10227-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 12/03/19 Page 11 of 36 Page ID #:11
`
`ingestion. Therefore, the product bears directions for use as a sublingual product,
`
`such product does not meet the definition of a dietary supplement under the FD&C
`
`Act.
`
`23. Defendant’s conduct is also deceptive, unfair, and unlawful in that it
`
`violates the prohibition against the sale of adulterated and misbranded products
`
`under California’s Sherman Laws, which adopt the federal labeling regulations as
`
`the food labeling requirements of the state. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 110100.
`
`24.
`
`The introduction of adulterated and misbranded food into interstate
`
`commerce is prohibited under the FDCA and the parallel state statute cited in this
`
`Class Action Complaint.
`
`25.
`
`Plaintiffs and Class Members would not have purchased the Products
`
`or would have paid less for the Products if they were aware of the misleading
`
`labeling of the Products by Defendant.
`
`26. Defendant intended for Plaintiffs and the Class members to be deceived
`
`or misled.
`
`27. Defendant’s deceptive and misleading practices proximately caused
`
`harm to the Plaintiffs and the Class.
`
`28.
`
`Plaintiffs and Class members would not have purchased the Products,
`
`or would have not paid as much for the Products, had they known the truth about the
`
`mislabeled and falsely advertised Products.
`
`11
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-10227-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 12/03/19 Page 12 of 36 Page ID #:12
`
`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`
`29.
`
`Plaintiffs seek to represent a class defined as all persons in the United
`
`States who purchased the Products during the class period (the “Class”). Excluded
`
`from the Class are Defendant, and its affiliates, employees, officers and directors,
`
`persons or entities that purchased the Products for resale, and the Judge(s) assigned
`
`to this case. Plaintiffs reserve the right to seek narrower multi-state subclasses as
`
`appropriate.
`
`30.
`
`Plaintiff Shaw also seeks to represent a Subclass of all persons in
`
`California who purchased the Products during the class period (the “California
`
`Subclass”). Excluded from the California Subclass are Defendant, its affiliates,
`
`employees, officers and directors, persons or entities that purchased the Products for
`
`resale, and the Judge(s) assigned to this case.
`
`31.
`
`Plaintiff Colette also seeks to represent a Subclass of all persons in
`
`Arizona who purchased the Products during the class period (the “Arizona
`
`Subclass”). Excluded from the Arizona Subclass are Defendant, its affiliates,
`
`employees, officers and directors, persons or entities that purchased the Products for
`
`resale, and the Judge(s) assigned to this case.
`
`32.
`
`Plaintiffs further reserve the right to redefine the Class(es), and/or
`
`requests for relief.
`
`12
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-10227-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 12/03/19 Page 13 of 36 Page ID #:13
`
`33. Certification of Plaintiffs’ claims
`
`for class-wide treatment
`
`is
`
`appropriate because Plaintiffs can prove the elements of their claims on a class-wide
`
`basis using the same evidence as would be used to prove those elements in individual
`
`actions alleging the same claims.
`
`34.
`
`The members of the proposed Class(es) are so numerous that joinder of
`
`all members is impracticable.
`
`35.
`
`The exact number of Class members is unknown. Due to the nature of
`
`the trade and commerce involved, as well as the number of online and direct
`
`complaints, Plaintiffs believe the Class consists of thousands of consumers.
`
`36. Common questions of law and fact affect the right of each Class
`
`member, and a common relief by way of damages is sought for Plaintiffs and Class
`
`members.
`
`37. Common questions of law and fact that affect Class members include,
`
`but are not limited to:
`
`a. Whether the Products, when used by consumers in a normal and
`customary manner and/or in accordance with Defendant’s suggested
`use, works as advertised, marketed, and conveyed to consumers;
`
`b. Whether, in the course of business, Defendant represented that the
`Products have characteristics, uses, benefits, or qualities that they do
`not have when used by consumers in a normal and customary manner
`and/or in accordance with Defendant’s suggested use;
`
`c. Whether the claims Defendant made and is making regarding the
`Products are unfair or deceptive; specifically, whether the Products
`
`13
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-10227-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 12/03/19 Page 14 of 36 Page ID #:14
`
`were illegally labeled as dietary supplements with illegal delivery
`instructions;
`
`d. Whether Defendant knew at the time the consumer transactions took
`place that consumers would not receive the promised benefits of the
`Products that Defendant was claiming they would receive;
`
`in
`e. Whether Defendant knowingly made misleading statements
`connection with consumer transactions that reasonable consumers were
`likely to rely upon to their detriment;
`
`the
`should have known that
`f. Whether Defendant knew or
`representations and advertisements regarding the Products were
`unsubstantiated, false, and misleading;
`
`g. Whether Defendant has breached express and implied warranties in the
`sale and marketing of the Products;
`
`h. Whether Defendant’s conduct violates public policy;
`
`i. Whether Defendant’s acts and omissions violate California law;
`
`j. Whether Defendant’s act and omissions violate the Arizona consumer
`protection law;
`
`k. Whether Defendant has been unjustly enriched by the sale of the
`Products to the Plaintiffs and the Class Members;
`
`l. Whether Plaintiffs and the Class Members did not receive the benefit
`of their bargain when purchasing the Products;
`
`m. Whether the Plaintiffs and the Class Members suffered monetary
`damages, and, if so, what is the measure of those damages;
`
`n. Whether Plaintiffs and the Class Members are entitled to an injunction,
`damages,
`restitution, equitable relief, and other
`relief deemed
`appropriate, and, if so, the amount and nature of such relief.
`
`14
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-10227-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 12/03/19 Page 15 of 36 Page ID #:15
`
`38. Defendant engaged in a common course of conduct giving rise to the
`
`legal rights sought to be enforced by Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the other
`
`Class members. Similar or identical statutory and common law violations, business
`
`practices, and injuries are involved.
`
`Individual questions, if any, are pale by
`
`comparison, in both quality and quantity, to the numerous common questions that
`
`dominate this action.
`
`39. Additionally, the factual basis of Defendant’s conduct is common to all
`
`Class members and represents a common thread of misconduct resulting in injury
`
`and damages to all members of the Class.
`
`40.
`
`The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately assert and protect the
`
`interests of the Class. Specifically, they have hired attorneys who are experienced
`
`in prosecuting class action claims and will adequately represent the interests of the
`
`Class; and they have no conflict of interests that will interfere with the maintenance
`
`of this class action.
`
`a. The common questions of law and fact set forth herein predominate
`over any questions affecting only individual Class members;
`
`b. The Class is so numerous as to make joinder impracticable but not so
`numerous as to create manageability problems;
`
`c. There are no unusual legal or factual issues which would create
`manageability problems, and depending on discovery, manageability
`will not be an issue as much information is solely in Defendant’s
`possession;
`
`15
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-10227-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 12/03/19 Page 16 of 36 Page ID #:16
`
`d. Prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Class
`would create a risk of inconsistent and varying adjudications against
`Defendant when confronted with incompatible standards of conduct;
`
`e. Adjudications with respect to individual members of the Class could,
`as a practical matter, be dispositive of any interest of other members
`not parties to such adjudications, or substantially impair their ability to
`protect their interests; and
`
`f. The claims of the individual Class members are small in relation to the
`expenses of litigation, making a Class action the only procedure in
`which Class members can, as a practical matter, recover. However, the
`claims of individual Class members are collectively large enough to
`justify the expense and effort in maintaining a class action.
`
`CAUSES OF ACTION
`
`COUNT I
`California’s Unfair Competition Law
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. (“UCL”)
`(On Behalf of the California Subclass)
`
`41.
`
`Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations
`
`contained in Paragraphs 1 through 40, as though set forth fully herein.
`
`42.
`
`Plaintiff Shaw brings this claim individually and on behalf of the
`
`members of the proposed California Subclass against Defendant.
`
`43.
`
`The UCL prohibits any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or
`
`practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.
`
`44.
`
`The acts, omissions, misrepresentations, practices, and non-disclosures
`
`of Defendant as alleged herein constitute business acts and practices.
`
`16
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-10227-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 12/03/19 Page 17 of 36 Page ID #:17
`
`45. Unlawful: The acts alleged herein are “unlawful” under the UCL in
`
`that they violate at least the following laws:
`
`The False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500 et seq.;
`
`The Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750 et seq.;
`
`The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 301 et seq.;
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`and
`
`The California Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law, Cal. Health &
`d.
`Safety Code §§ 110100 et seq.
`
`46. Unfair: Defendant’s conduct with respect to the labeling, advertising,
`
`and sale of the Products was “unfair” because Defendant’s conduct was immoral,
`
`unethical, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers and the utility of
`
`their conduct, if any, does not outweigh the gravity of the harm to their victims.
`
`47. Defendant’s conduct with respect to the labeling, advertising, and sale
`
`of the Products was and is also unfair because it violates public policy as declared
`
`by specific constitutional, statutory or regulatory provisions, including but not
`
`limited to the applicable sections of: the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the False
`
`Advertising Law, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and the California
`
`Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law.
`
`48. Defendant’s conduct with respect to the labeling, advertising, and sale
`
`of the Products was and is unfair because the consumer injury was substantial, not
`
`17
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-10227-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 12/03/19 Page 18 of 36 Page ID #:18
`
`outweighed by benefits to consumers or competition, and not one consumer
`
`themselves could reasonably have avoided.
`
`49.
`
`Fraudulent: A statement or practice is “fraudulent” under the UCL if it
`
`is likely to mislead or deceive the public, applying an objective reasonable consumer
`
`test.
`
`50. As set forth herein, Defendant’s claims relating the ingredients stated
`
`on the Products’ labeling and moreover that the Products were labeled as illegal
`
`dietary supplements with illegal delivery instruction is likely to mislead reasonable
`
`consumers to believe the product is legal to purchase.
`
`51. Defendant profited from its sale of the falsely, deceptively, and
`
`unlawfully advertised and packaged Products to unwary consumers.
`
`52.
`
`Plaintiff and California Subclass Members are likely to continue to be
`
`damaged by Defendant’s deceptive trade practices, because Defendant continues to
`
`disseminate misleading information on the Products’ packaging. Thus, injunctive
`
`relief enjoining Defendant’s deceptive practices is proper.
`
`53. Defendant’s conduct caused and continues to cause substantial injury
`
`to Plaintiff and the other California Subclass Members. Plaintiff has suffered injury
`
`in fact as a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct.
`
`54.
`
`In accordance with Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203, Plaintiff seeks an order
`
`enjoining Defendant from continuing to conduct business through unlawful, unfair,
`
`18
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-10227-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 12/03/19 Page 19 of 36 Page ID #:19
`
`and/or fraudulent acts and practices, and to commence a corrective advertising
`
`campaign.
`
`55.
`
`Plaintiff and the California Subclass also seek an order for and
`
`restitution of all monies from the sale of the Products, which were unjustly acquired
`
`through acts of unlawful competition.
`
`COUNT II
`California’s False Advertising Law
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 (“FAL”)
`(On Behalf of the California Subclass)
`
`56.
`
`Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through
`
`40 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`57.
`
`Plaintiff Shaw brings this claim individually and on behalf of the
`
`members of the proposed California Subclass against Defendant.
`
`58.
`
`The FAL provides that “[i]t
`
`is unlawful for any person, firm,
`
`corporation or association, or any employee thereof with intent directly or indirectly
`
`to dispose of real or personal property or to perform services” to disseminate any
`
`statement “which is untrue or misleading, and which is known, or which by the
`
`exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be untrue or misleading.” Cal. Bus.
`
`& Prof. Code § 17500.
`
`//
`
`//
`
`19
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-10227-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 12/03/19 Page 20 of 36 Page ID #:20
`
`59.
`
`It is also unlawful under the FAL to disseminate statements concerning
`
`property or services that are “untrue or misleading, and which is known, or which
`
`by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be untrue or misleading.” Id.
`
`60. As alleged herein, the advertisements, labeling, policies, acts, and
`
`practices of Defendant relating to the Products misled consumers acting reasonably
`
`as to the ingredients and effectiveness of the Products.
`
`61.
`
`Plaintiff suffered injury in fact as a result of Defendant’s actions as set
`
`forth herein because she purchased the Products in reliance on Defendant’s false and
`
`misleading labeling claims that the Products, among other things, that the Products
`
`contained the ingredients stated on the Products’ labeling and moreover that the
`
`Products were labeled as legal dietary supplements with legal delivery instruction as
`
`claimed on the Products’ labeling and Defendant’s website.
`
`62. Defendant’s business practices as alleged herein constitute deceptive,
`
`untrue, and misleading advertising pursuant to the FAL because Defendant has
`
`advertised the Products in a manner that is untrue and misleading, which Defendant
`
`knew or reasonably should have known, and omitted material information from its
`
`advertising.
`
`63. Defendant profited from its sale of the falsely and deceptively
`
`advertised Products to unwary consumers.
`
`20
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-10227-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 12/03/19 Page 21 of 36 Page ID #:21
`
`64. As a result, Plaintiff, the California Subclass, and the general public are
`
`entitled to injunctive and equitable relief, restitution, and an order for the
`
`disgorgement of the funds by which Defendant was unjustly enriched.
`
`65.
`
`Pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17535, Plaintiff, on behalf of
`
`herself and the California Subclass, seeks an order enjoining Defendant from
`
`continuing to engage in deceptive business practices, false advertising, and any other
`
`act prohibited by law, including those set forth in this Complaint.
`
`COUNT III
`California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et seq. (“CLRA”)
`(On Behalf of the California Subclass)
`
`66.
`
`Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through
`
`40 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`67.
`
`Plaintiff Shaw brings this claim individually and on behalf of the
`
`members of the proposed California Subclass against Defendant.
`
`68.
`
`The CLRA prohibits deceptive practices in connection with the conduct
`
`of a business that provides goods, property, or services primarily for personal,
`
`family, or household purposes.
`
`69. Defendant’s false and misleading labeling and other policies, acts, and
`
`practices were designed to, and did, induce the purchase and use of the Products for
`
`21
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-10227-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 12/03/19 Page 22 of 36 Page ID #:22
`
`personal, family, or household purposes by Plaintiff and California Subclass
`
`Members, and violated and continue to violate the following sections of the CLRA:
`
`a. § 1770(a)(5): representing that goods have characteristics, uses, or
`benefits which they do not have;
`
`b. § 1770(a)(7): representing that goods are of a particular standard,
`quality, or grade if they are of another;
`
`c. § 1770(a)(9): advertising goods with intent not
`advertised; and
`
`to sell
`
`them as
`
`d. § 1770(a)(16): representing the subject of a transaction has been
`supplied in accordance with a previous representation when it has not.
`
`70. Defendant profited from the sale of the falsely, deceptively, and
`
`unlawfully advertised Products to unwary consumers.
`
`71. Defendant’s wrongful business practices constituted, and constitute, a
`
`continuing course of conduct in violation of the CLRA.
`
`72.
`
`Pursuant to the provisions of Cal. Civ. Code § 1782(a), Plaintiff will
`
`provide a letter to Defendant concurrently with the filing of this Class Action
`
`Complaint or shortly thereafter with notice of its alleged violations of the CLRA,
`
`demanding that Defendant correct such violations, and providing it with the
`
`opportunity to correct its business practices. If Defendant does not thereafter correct
`
`its business practices, Plaintiff will amend (or seek leave to amend) the complaint to
`
`add claims for monetary relief, including restitution and actual damages under the
`
`Consumers Legal Remedies Act.
`
`22
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-10227-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 12/03/19 Page 23 of 36 Page ID #:23
`
`73.
`
`Pursuant to California Civil Code § 1780, Plaintiff seeks injunctive
`
`relief, her reasonable attorney fees and costs, and any other relief that the Court
`
`deems proper.
`
`COUNT IV
`Breach of Express Warranties
`Cal. Com. Code § 2313(1)
`(On Behalf of the California Subclass)
`
`74.
`
`Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through
`
`40 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`75.
`
`Plaintiff Shaw brings this claim individually and on behalf of the
`
`members of the proposed California Subclass against Defendant.
`
`76.
`
`Through the Products’
`
`labels and advertising, Defendant made
`
`affirmations of fact or promises, or description of goods, described above, which
`
`were “part of the basis of the bargain,” in that Plaintiff and the California Subclass
`
`purchased the Products in reasonable reliance on those statements. Cal. Com. Code
`
`§ 2313(1).
`
`77. Defendant breached the express warranties by selling Products that do
`
`not and cannot provide the promised benefits and moreover by selling Products that
`
`are illegally labeled as dietary supplements with illegal delivery instructions.
`
`23
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-10227-CAS-JEM Document 1 Filed 12/03/19 Page 24 of 36 Page ID #:24
`
`78.
`
`Plaintif