throbber
Case 8:21-cv-00477-JVS-ADS Document 1 Filed 03/12/21 Page 1 of 32 Page ID #:1
`
`
`LAW OFFICE OF FRANCIS J. FLYNN, JR.
`Francis J. “Casey” Flynn, Jr.
`422 South Curson Avenue
`Los Angeles, California 90036-3169
`T: 314-662-2836
`F: 1-855-710-7706
`E: casey@lawofficeflynn.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`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 No.:
`
`CLASS ACTION
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`FOR:
`
`(1) BREACH OF EXPRESS
`WARRANTY UNDER THE
`MAGNUSON MOSS
`WARRANTY ACT
`(2) VIOLATION OF THE
`CALIFORNIA UNFAIR
`COMPETITION LAW
`CALIFORNIA BUSINESS &
`PROFESSIONS CODE §
`17200, ET SEQ.
`(3) VIOLATION OF THE
`CALIFORNIA CONSUMER
`LEGAL REMEDIES ACT,
`CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE
`§ 1750, ET SEQ.
`(4) VIOLATION OF THE
`CALIFORNIA FALSE AND
`MISLEADING
`ADVERTISING IN
`VIOLATION OF BUSINESS
`& PROFESSIONS CODE §
`17500, ET SEQ.
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`))))
`
`
`)
`
`)))
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`))))))))))
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`1
`
`JEREMIAH DELGADO, individually
`and on behalf of all others similarly
`situated
`
`
`Plaintiff(s),
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.
`
`Defendant.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No.:
`
`

`

`Case 8:21-cv-00477-JVS-ADS Document 1 Filed 03/12/21 Page 2 of 32 Page ID #:2
`
`
`COMES NOW Plaintiff Jeremiah Delgado (hereinafter “Plaintiff”),
`
`individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, by and through
`
`undersigned counsel, and hereby bring Plaintiff’s Class Action Complaint against
`
`Amazon.com, Inc., (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant” or “Amazon”, alleging,
`
`upon personal knowledge as to Plaintiff’s individual actions and upon information
`
`and belief and/or counsel’s investigations as to all other matters, the following:
`
`STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION & VENUE
`
`1.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to
`
`28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d)(2) and (6), because (a) the aggregated claims of the putative
`
`members of each of the Classes exceed $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs;
`
`(b) there are at least 100 members in each Class; and (c) at least one of the members
`
`of each of the proposed Classes is a citizen of a different state than Defendant.
`
`2.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because
`
`Defendant, directly or through an agent, has transacted business and engaged in
`
`tortious and fraudulent conduct, by affirmative acts or omissions, in the State of
`
`California such that it reasonably anticipated being subject to personal jurisdiction
`
`before the courts of this State. Defendant’s agents have advertised, marketed,
`
`and/or sold USB Flash Drives in California, including in this District. Defendant
`
`has sufficient minimum contacts with this State, and/or sufficiently availed itself to
`
`the markets of this State through its advertising, marketing, and sale within this
`
`State to render the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court permissible. Further, this
`2
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No.:
`
`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 8:21-cv-00477-JVS-ADS Document 1 Filed 03/12/21 Page 3 of 32 Page ID #:3
`
`
`Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because its Internet websites allow
`
`consumers to order and ship products anywhere in the United States, including this
`
`District. Defendant conducts business throughout the United States, including this
`
`District.
`
`3.
`
`Venue properly lies in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391
`
`because Plaintiff resides in and Defendant has transacted substantial business within
`
`this District within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1391, and because a substantial part
`
`of the events giving rise to the claims alleged herein occurred in this District. Venue
`
`is also proper pursuant to 1781(d) because this Action being filed in the District
`
`Court located in the county where the transaction or any substantial portion thereof
`
`occurred. See, Exhibit A, Venue Affidavit of Jeremiah Delgado.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`4.
`
`This case challenges Defendant’s practice of selling counterfeit
`
`glucosamine sulfate supplements. Simply stated, these products are marketed as
`
`glucosamine sulfate when, as a matter of fact, no glucosamine sulfate is found in
`
`the products.
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of himself and all purchasers
`
`in California against Defendant of any products sold and/or supplied by Defendant
`
`that represent on
`
`their
`
`labeling
`
`that
`
`they contain Glucosamine Sulfate
`
`(“Glucosamine Sulfate Products”), for breach of express warranty, violations of the
`
`California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et
`3
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No.:
`
`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 8:21-cv-00477-JVS-ADS Document 1 Filed 03/12/21 Page 4 of 32 Page ID #:4
`
`
`seq.; violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), Cal.
`
`Civ. Code §§ 1750, et seq.; and violations of the California False Advertising Law
`
`(“FAL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500, et seq. regarding its unfair, unlawful,
`
`unethical fraudulent, misleading, unconscionable, and/or deceptive sales and/or
`
`marketing of its Glucosamine Sulfate containing Supplements (“Glucosamine
`
`Sulfate Products”) (the “California Class”). Plaintiff also brings this class action on
`
`behalf of himself and all purchasers nationwide of Defendant’s Glucosamine
`
`Sulfate Products for breach of warranty and unjust enrichment.
`
`6.
`
`The dietary supplement market in this country is massive, with
`
`consumers spending billions of dollars every year on these products. Glucosamine
`
`is one of the most commonly purchased dietary supplements, with annual revenue
`
`in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
`
`7.
`
`Glucosamine typically comes in two formulations: glucosamine
`
`sulfate (“Glucosamine Sulfate”) and glucosamine hydrochloride (“Glucosamine
`
`Hydrochloride”).
`
`8.
`
`Glucosamine Sulfate is clinically preferred and is believed to be more
`
`effective, and, accordingly, consumers typically choose Glucosamine Sulfate. It
`
`therefore sells for more than other glucosamine products.
`
`9.
`
`Simply stated, Amazon is selling dietary supplements that are not what
`
`they claim to be.
`
`II.
`
`PARTIES
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No.:
`
`4
`
`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 8:21-cv-00477-JVS-ADS Document 1 Filed 03/12/21 Page 5 of 32 Page ID #:5
`
`
`A. Plaintiff
`10. Plaintiff Jeremiah Delgado (“Plaintiff”) is a citizen of the state of
`
`California, residing in Orange County, California. Plaintiff purchased a bottle of
`
`Solimo Glucosamine Sulfate 2KCl 1000mg, a dietary supplement manufactured,
`
`marketed, and/or sold by Defendant.
`
`
`
`11. Plaintiff purchased the dietary supplement “Glucosamine Sulfate 2KCl
`
`1000 mg”. The product is marketed as “Glucosamine Sulfate 2KCl 1000 mg”.
`
`Defendant represents in writing that each two-capsule serving contains 1000mg of
`
`Glucosamine Sulfate. However, laboratory testing confirms that the product
`
`Plaintiff purchased does not, in fact, contain any Glucosamine Sulfate.
`
`B.
`Defendant
`12. Defendant Amazon.com, Inc. is incorporated in the State of Delaware
`
`and has its principal place of business in the State of Washington. Defendant
`
`manufactures, markets and sells various Solimo and 365 Everyday Value dietary
`
`supplements to consumers nationwide.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No.:
`
`5
`
`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 8:21-cv-00477-JVS-ADS Document 1 Filed 03/12/21 Page 6 of 32 Page ID #:6
`
`
`IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
`
`13. Glucosamine is a popular dietary supplement that consumers generally
`
`take in order to preserve joint health or to help treat the symptoms of joint pain,
`
`osteoarthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis.
`
`14. Glucosamine supplements are commercially available in the forms of
`
`Glucosamine Sulfate, Glucosamine Hydrochloride, and N-acetyl glucosamine.
`
`Glucosamine Sulfate has demonstrated clinical effectiveness for certain conditions,
`
`while other forms of glucosamine have not. Indeed, the Mayo Clinic explicitly
`
`notes that “[t]hese supplements are not considered interchangeable.”1
`
`15. Thus, the common perception of Glucosamine Sulfate is that it
`
`performs better than Glucosamine Hydrochloride or placebo treatments.
`
`16. Accordingly, retailers such as Defendant promote Glucosamine
`
`Sulfate over Glucosamine Hydrochloride.
`
`C. The Dietary Supplement Industry Has Taken Advantage of the Lack of
`Regulation to the Detriment of Consumers
`
`17.
`
` Dietary supplements fall under the umbrella of food, not drugs.2
`
`Therefore, dietary supplements are not subject to the Federal laws or strict United
`
`States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations that apply to drugs. While
`
`supplement manufacturers are subject to certain provisions of the Dietary
`
`
`1 See https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements-glucosamine/art-20362874 as accessed
`December 14, 2020.
`2 21 U.S.C. § 321(ff)(1)(C). For purposes of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, “a
`dietary supplement shall be deemed to be a food….” Id. § 321(ff).
`6
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No.:
`
`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 8:21-cv-00477-JVS-ADS Document 1 Filed 03/12/21 Page 7 of 32 Page ID #:7
`
`
`Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (“DSHEA”), dietary supplement
`
`firms are not required to prove to the FDA that their products work or are safe before
`
`they sell them.3 Rather, manufacturers of a “product … intended to supplement the
`
`diet that bears or contains […] (D) an amino acid; (E) a dietary substance for use
`
`by man to supplement the diet by increasing the total dietary intake; (F) a
`
`concentrate, metabolite, constituent, extract, or combination of any ingredient
`
`described in clause (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E)”4 and/or “means a product that is
`
`labeled as a dietary supplement” are generally left to self-police their compliance
`
`with DSHEA.
`
`18.
`
`21 U.S.C. § 343(s) provides that a food “shall be deemed to be
`
`misbranded” if it is a dietary supplement and fails to list “the name of each
`
`ingredient” in the dietary supplement, the “quantity of each such ingredient,” or
`
`“the label or labeling of the supplement fails to identify any part of the plant from
`
`which the ingredient is derived,” or, if the supplement is either covered by the
`
`specifications of an official compendium, is represented as conforming to the
`
`specifications of an official compendium, and fails to so conform, or, for
`
`supplements that aren’t covered by an official compendium, if it “fails to have the
`
`identity and strength that the supplement is represented to have.”
`
`
`3 http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-06-30/news/ct-met-supplement-inspections-
`20120630_1_dietary-supplements-inspections-american-herbal-products-association/2
`4 21 U.S.C. § 321(ff). For purposes of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, “a
`dietary supplement shall be deemed to be a food […]” Id. § 321(ff).
`7
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No.:
`
`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 8:21-cv-00477-JVS-ADS Document 1 Filed 03/12/21 Page 8 of 32 Page ID #:8
`
`
`19.
`
`21 U.S.C. § 342(g)(1) provides that a food shall be deemed to be
`
`adulterated “[i]f it is a dietary supplement and it has been prepared [or] packed …
`
`under conditions that do not meet current good manufacturing practice
`
`regulations….”
`
`20. Current implementing regulations promulgated by the FDA under
`
`DSHEA require dietary supplement manufacturers, packagers, and labelers
`
`(“Manufacturer”) to “implement a system of production and process controls that
`
`covers all stages of manufacturing, packaging, labeling, and holding of the dietary
`
`supplement to ensure the quality of the dietary supplement….”
`
`21. Manufacturers must establish “component specifications … to ensure
`
`… the purity, strength and composition of dietary supplements manufactured using
`
`the components….”
`
`22. Manufacturers are required to test each component used in the
`
`manufacture of dietary supplements, including on each incoming shipment of
`
`components prior to their use in the manufacture of dietary supplements,22 and
`
`again on each finished batch.
`
`Amazon represents that the Affected Products are What they Purport to Be.
`
`23. Defendant makes representations on the labels of each of the following
`
`dietary supplement products – Glucosamine Sulfate (“Affected Products”) –
`
`regarding the ingredients in the Affected Products.
`
`24. A Solimo Label is reproduced below:
`8
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No.:
`
`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 8:21-cv-00477-JVS-ADS Document 1 Filed 03/12/21 Page 9 of 32 Page ID #:9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`25. Throughout the Class Period, the packaging for Defendant’s
`
`products has consistently included “Supplement Facts” representing that each
`
`capsule contains a specific amount of a particular supplement.
`
`26. Defendant’s Glucosamine Sulfate 2KCL 1000 mg product is
`
`represented to contain 1000 milligrams of “Glucosamine Sulfate Potassium
`
`Chloride” per serving.
`
`27. The “Supplement Facts” for this product also list Ingredients as
`
`follows: “Glucosamine Sulfate Potassium Chloride, Povidone, Microcrystaline
`
`Cellulose, contains 2% or less of carboxymethlcellulos, magnesium stearate,
`
`polydextrose, polyethylene glycol, polyvinyl alcohol, silica, talc, titanium dioxide
`
`(color). Contains: Crustacean Shellfish (crab, shrimp).”
`
`28. A reasonable consumer would expect, as Plaintiffs did, that the label
`
`statements regarding the identity, quantity, and purity of the Affected Products
`
`would be truthful and not deceptive or misleading.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No.:
`
`9
`
`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 8:21-cv-00477-JVS-ADS Document 1 Filed 03/12/21 Page 10 of 32 Page ID #:10
`
`
`Plaintiffs and the Class and Subclass Would
`Not Have Purchased the Affected Products Had They Known the Truth.
`
`29. Defendant failed to disclose on its labels or otherwise that the Affected
`
`Products do not contain
`
`the
`
`ingredients
`
`represented on
`
`the Affected
`
`Products’ labels or that the Affected Products contain adulterants or undisclosed
`
`substances.
`
`30. The actual contents of the Affected Products are important to Plaintiff
`
`and members of the Class and Subclass. Defendant’s failure to disclose that the
`
`Affected Products do not contain the ingredients as represented on the labels and
`
`that the Affected Products contain adulterants or undisclosed substances affected
`
`Plaintiff’s and Class and Subclass members’ purchasing decisions in that they
`
`would not have purchased the Affected Products had Defendant disclosed the true
`
`facts concerning their actual ingredients and composition.
`
`31. Defendant recognizes or should have recognized the materiality and
`
`importance of the quality and safety of its products to its customers.
`
`32. Plaintiffs and the Class and Subclass were misled and deceived by
`
`Defendant’s material misrepresentations and/or omissions and were damaged and
`
`injured as a result of Defendant’s conduct because:
`
`
`
`a.
`
`They would not have purchased the Affected Products had they known
`
`that the Affected Products did not contain the ingredients as represented on the
`
`labels, and/or contained adulterants or undisclosed substances; and/or
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No.:
`
`10
`
`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 8:21-cv-00477-JVS-ADS Document 1 Filed 03/12/21 Page 11 of 32 Page ID #:11
`
`
`
`
`b.
`
`They did not receive the benefit of the bargain and/or suffered out of
`
`pocket loss due to the misrepresentations and omissions in the Affected Products’
`
`labeling, as described above; and/or
`
`
`
`c.
`
`The Affected Products were worthless and had no value due to
`
`Defendant’s misrepresentations, omissions, untrue, misleading, unethical, unfair,
`
`and/or deceptive statements and mislabeling, as described above.
`
`33. Plaintiff and the Class and Subclass would not have purchased the
`
`Affected Products had they known the truth.
`
`34. Defendant failed to disclose on its labels or otherwise that the Affected
`
`Products do not contain the ingredients represented on the Affected Products’ labels
`
`or that the Affected Products contain adulterants or undisclosed substances.
`
`35. The actual contents of the Affected Products are important to Plaintiffs
`
`and members of the Class. Defendant’s failure to disclose that the Affected Products
`
`do not contain the ingredients as represented on the labels and that the Affected
`
`Products contain adulterants or undisclosed substances affected Plaintiffs’ and
`
`Class members’ purchasing decisions in that they would not have purchased the
`
`Affected Products had Defendant disclosed the true facts concerning their actual
`
`ingredients and composition.
`
`V. PLAINTIFF’S EXPERIENCE WITH DEFENDANT’S PRODUCT
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No.:
`
`11
`
`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 8:21-cv-00477-JVS-ADS Document 1 Filed 03/12/21 Page 12 of 32 Page ID #:12
`
`
`36. Defendant sells products that are represented to include Glucosamine
`
`Sulfate to the public in California and nationwide, through Amazon.com and at
`
`Whole Foods Markets.
`
`37. Defendant’s various Glucosamine Sulfate Products include those sold
`
`under the Solimo and 365 Everyday Value brands.
`
`38. Defendant’s Glucosamine Sulfate products prominently display the
`
`words “Glucosamine Sulfate” on the front of label, in addition to the Supplement
`
`Facts panel. As such, a reasonable person would believe that the product contains
`
`Glucosamine Sulfate in particular.
`
`39. At various times in the past, Plaintiff purchased Amazon’s Solimo-
`
`branded Glucosamine Sulfate. He did so in reliance on the accuracy of its label, and
`
`specifically Defendant’s representation that it contained Glucosamine Sulfate.
`
`40. Exemplars of Defendant’s products have been tested by Plaintiff’s
`
`counsel. The lab’s findings concluded that the primary composition of the capsules
`
`consisted of Glucosamine Hydrochloride and Potassium Sulfate. The analysis found
`
`no trace of Glucosamine Sulfate, contrary to the claims on the product label.
`
`41. Plaintiff suffered damage and detriment as a result of Defendant’s
`
`misrepresentations. Plaintiff purchased Solimo Glucosamine Sulfate, one of
`
`Defendant’s Glucosamine Sulfate Products, because he believed it contained
`
`Glucosamine Sulfate. Had the product label truthfully disclosed that it did not
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No.:
`
`12
`
`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 8:21-cv-00477-JVS-ADS Document 1 Filed 03/12/21 Page 13 of 32 Page ID #:13
`
`
`contain Glucosamine Sulfate, Plaintiff would not have been willing to pay any sum
`
`of money for the product, and would not have purchased the product.
`
`VI. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`
`42. Plaintiffs bring this action and seek to certify and maintain it as a class
`
`action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, individually and on behalf of the following Class:
`
`All individuals and entities in the United States who purchased
`SOLIMO Glucosamine Sulfate products within the applicable
`statutes of limitations preceding the filing of this lawsuit. (the
`“Nationwide Class”)
`
`43. Excluded from the Classes are: (a) Defendant and any entities in which
`
`Defendant have a controlling interest; (b) Any entities in which Defendant’s
`
`officers, directors, or employees are employed and any of the legal representatives,
`
`heirs, successors, or assigns of Defendant; (c) All current employees of Defendant;
`
`(d) The Judge(s) to whom this case or any transferred case is assigned and any
`
`member of the Judges’ immediate family and any other judicial officer assigned to
`
`this case or any transferred case; (f) All governmental entities; (g) anyone who
`
`makes a timely election to be excluded from the Class.
`
`44. Plaintiff similarly seeks to represent a Subclass defined as:
`
`in California who purchased SOLIMO
`individuals
`All
`Glucosamine Sulfate products within the applicable statutes of
`limitations preceding the filing of this lawsuit. (the “California
`Subclass”)
`
`45. Excluded from the Subclass are: (a) Defendant and any entities in
`
`which Defendant has a controlling interest; (b) Any entities in which Defendant’s
`13
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No.:
`
`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 8:21-cv-00477-JVS-ADS Document 1 Filed 03/12/21 Page 14 of 32 Page ID #:14
`
`
`officers, directors, or employees are employed and any of the legal representatives,
`
`heirs, successors, or assigns of Defendant; (c) All current employees of Defendant;
`
`(d) The Judge(s) to whom this case or any transferred case is assigned and any
`
`member of the Judges’ immediate family and any other judicial officer assigned to
`
`this case or any transferred case; (f) All governmental entities; (g) anyone who
`
`makes a timely election to be excluded from the Class.
`
`46. All Class allegations herein apply to the Class and Subclass equally.
`
`47. Plaintiff reserves the right to modify or amend the definitions of the
`
`proposed Class and Subclass and/or to add Subclasses if necessary before the Court
`
`determines whether certification is appropriate and as the Court may otherwise
`
`allow.
`
`48. This case is properly brought as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`23(a), (b)(2), (b)(3), and (c)(4), and all requirements therein are met for the reasons
`
`set forth herein.
`
`49. The claims of all Class members derive directly from a single course
`
`of conduct by the Defendant. Defendant has and continues to engage in uniform and
`
`standardized conduct toward the Class members. Defendant does not differentiates,
`
`in degree of care or candor, in their actions or inactions, or the content of their
`
`statements or omissions, among individual Class members. Accordingly, Plaintiff
`
`brings this lawsuit as a class action on Plaintiff’s own behalf and on behalf of all
`
`other persons similarly situated pursuant under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. This action
`14
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No.:
`
`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 8:21-cv-00477-JVS-ADS Document 1 Filed 03/12/21 Page 15 of 32 Page ID #:15
`
`
`satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and
`
`superiority requirements of these provisions.
`
`50. Certification of Plaintiff’s claims is appropriate because Plaintiff can
`
`prove the elements of Plaintiff’s claims on a class-wide basis using the same
`
`evidence as would be used to prove those elements in individual actions alleging
`
`the same claim.
`
`51. Numerosity - Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). The Class and Subclass are so
`
`numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. While the exact number is
`
`not known at this time, it is generally ascertainable by appropriate discovery.
`
`Moreover, glucosamine sulfate supplements are among the most common and
`
`popular supplements, and, thus, it is believed the Class includes many thousands of
`
`members. The numerosity requirement is, therefore, satisfied. Undoubtedly,
`
`individual joinder in this case is impracticable.
`
`52. Ascertainability. The Class and Subclass are each ascertainable
`
`because its members can be readily identified using receipts, purchase records,
`
`business records, and other information kept by Defendant and/or third parties in
`
`the usual course of business and within their control or Plaintiff and the Class
`
`themselves. Plaintiff anticipates providing appropriate notice to the Class to be
`
`approved by the Court after class certification, or pursuant to court order.
`
`53. Commonality and Predominance - Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2) and
`
`(b)(3). There are several questions of law and fact common to the claims of
`15
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No.:
`
`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 8:21-cv-00477-JVS-ADS Document 1 Filed 03/12/21 Page 16 of 32 Page ID #:16
`
`
`Plaintiffs and the members of the Class and Subclass. All of the members of the
`
`Class’ and Subclass’ claims are based upon the same facts and circumstances, i.e.,
`
`the marketing and sales practices of Defendant’s products. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3),
`
`The questions of law and fact common to the members of the Class and Subclass
`
`predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the Class and
`
`Subclass. The resolution of common questions in this case will resolve the claims
`
`of both Plaintiff and the Class and Subclass. Common questions include, but are not
`
`limited to, the following:
`
`a. Whether Defendant unfairly, unethically, unlawfully,
`
`falsely,
`
`deceptively, misleadingly, unconscionably, and/or confusingly misrepresented the
`
`nature of their products;
`
`b. Whether Defendant unfairly, unethically, unlawfully,
`
`falsely,
`
`deceptively, misleadingly, unconscionably, and/or confusingly misrepresented the
`
`contents of its products;
`
`c. Whether Defendant unfairly, unethically, unlawfully,
`
`falsely,
`
`fraudulently, deceptively, misleadingly, unconscionably, and/or confusingly
`
`induced Plaintiff and the Members of the Class and Subclass into purchasing its
`
`products;
`
`d. Whether Defendant engaged in unfair, unlawful, fraudulent, unethical,
`
`unconscionable, and/or deceptive trade practices by inducing Plaintiff and the Class
`
`and Subclass to purchase its product on terms that were knowingly misleading and
`16
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No.:
`
`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 8:21-cv-00477-JVS-ADS Document 1 Filed 03/12/21 Page 17 of 32 Page ID #:17
`
`
`inaccurate;
`
`e. Whether Defendant’s marketing, sales, and/or other business practices
`
`are unfair, deceptive, unlawful, fraudulent, unconscionable, and/or unethical;
`
`f. Whether the Affected Products were sold in containers with packaging
`
`identifying them as containing a particular dietary supplement, i.e., Glucosamine
`
`Sulfate;
`
`g. Whether, contrary to the product packaging, the Affected Products did
`
`not
`
`contain the dietary supplement identified on the packaging, i.e., Glucosamine
`
`Sulfate;
`
`h. Whether the Affected Products contained ingredients that were not
`
`disclosed on the packaging;
`
`i. Whether Defendant manufactured and/or sold the Affected Products;
`
`j. Whether a reasonable consumer would be misled or deceived by the
`
`Affected Products’ packaging;
`
`k. Whether Defendant breached express or implied warranties;
`
`l. Whether Defendant had a duty to disclose the actual contents of its
`
`products prior to sale;
`
`m. Whether Defendant violated the applicable consumer protection
`
`statutes;
`
`n. Whether Defendant concealed material facts in its advertising
`17
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No.:
`
`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 8:21-cv-00477-JVS-ADS Document 1 Filed 03/12/21 Page 18 of 32 Page ID #:18
`
`
`materials and agreement and/or failed to adequately disclose to Plaintiff material
`
`facts;
`
`o. Whether Defendant has engaged in deceptive acts or practices in
`
`connection with the sales, marketing, and/or manufacturing of the its products;
`
`p.
`
`Expressly disclaiming damages under the CLRA, whether Plaintiff and
`
`the Class and Subclass are entitled to compensatory, actual, and/or statutory
`
`damages as a result of Defendant’s unfair, unlawful, unethical, deceptive,
`
`unconscionable, and/or fraudulent conduct; and,
`
`q. Whether Plaintiff and the Class and Subclass are entitled to injunctive,
`
`declaratory relief, or other equitable relief.
`
`54. Typicality - Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of
`
`the claims of the Class and Subclass. The claims of the Plaintiffs and the respective
`
`Class and Subclass are based on the same legal theories and arise from the same
`
`unlawful and willful conduct of Defendant, resulting in the same injury to the
`
`Plaintiffs and the respective Class and Subclass. Plaintiffs and all members of the
`
`Class and Subclass are similarly affected by Defendant’s wrongful conduct and
`
`were damaged in the same way. Plaintiffs’ interests coincide with, and are not
`
`antagonistic to, those of the other Class and Subclass members. Plaintiffs have been
`
`damaged by the same wrongdoing set forth in this Complaint. Plaintiffs, like other
`
`members of the Classes, purchased one or more Affected Products that did not
`
`contain the primary ingredients listed and the packaging and that such supplements
`18
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No.:
`
`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 8:21-cv-00477-JVS-ADS Document 1 Filed 03/12/21 Page 19 of 32 Page ID #:19
`
`
`were supposed to contain and/or contained ingredients that were not disclosed on
`
`the packaging or label. Plaintiffs were subject to, and were financially harmed by,
`
`a common policy and practice applied by each Defendant to the respective Class
`
`members.
`
`55. Adequacy - Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). Plaintiffs are adequate Class and
`
`Subclass representatives because Plaintiffs have retained counsel competent and
`
`experienced in complex class action litigation; neither Plaintiffs nor Plaintiffs’
`
`counsel have any interest adverse to those of the other members of the Class and
`
`Subclass; Plaintiffs are knowledgeable about the subject matter of this action and
`
`will assist counsel to vigorously prosecute this litigation and has or can acquire
`
`adequate financial resources to assure that the interests of the Class and Subclass
`
`will not be harmed. The interests of the members of Class and Subclass will be
`
`fairly and adequately protected by Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel. As such,
`
`Plaintiffs meets the adequacy requirement.
`
`56. Superiority - Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). The class action is superior to
`
`other available means for the fair and efficient adjudication of this dispute. The
`
`injury suffered by each member of the Class, while meaningful on an individual
`
`basis, is not of such magnitude as to make the prosecution of individual actions
`
`against Defendant economically feasible. Even if members of the Class and
`
`Subclass themselves could afford such individualized litigation, the court system
`
`could not. In addition to the burden and expense of managing many actions,
`19
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No.:
`
`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 8:21-cv-00477-JVS-ADS Document 1 Filed 03/12/21 Page 20 of 32 Page ID #:20
`
`
`individualized litigation presents a potential for inconsistent or contradictory
`
`judgments. Individualized litigation increases the delay and expense to all parties
`
`and the court system presented by the legal and factual issues of the case. A class
`
`action would achieve substantial economies of time, effort and expense, and would
`
`assure uniformity of decision as to persons similarly situated without sacrificing
`
`procedural fairness. By contrast, the class action device presents far fewer
`
`management difficulties and provides the benefits of single uniform adjudication,
`
`economy of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court. The
`
`prosecution of separate actions by the individual members of the Class and Subclass
`
`would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudication with respect to individual
`
`members of the Class. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members
`
`of the Class and Subclass would create a risk of adjudications with respect to them
`
`which would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the interests of other members
`
`of the Class and Subclass not parties to the adjudications, or substantially impair or
`
`impede their ability to protect their interests.
`
`57. Policies Generally Applicable to the Class and Subclass. Fed. R.
`
`Civ. P. 23(b)(2). Defe

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket