`
`
`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