Case 4:22-cv-00035-JST Document 34 Filed 04/22/22 Page 1 of 21
`
`Andrew S. Wong (SBN 198227)
`DECHERT LLP
`US Bank Tower
`633 West 5th Street, Suite 4900
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-2032
`Telephone: +1 213 808 5700
`Facsimile:
`+1 213 808 5760
`Email: andrew.wong@dechert.com
`Christina Guerola Sarchio (pro hac vice)
`DECHERT LLP
`1900 K Street, NW
`Washington, D.C. 20006-1110
`Telephone: +1 202 261 3300
`Facsimile:
`+1 202 261 3333
`Email: christina.sarchio@dechert.com
`Hayoung Park (pro hac vice)
`DECHERT LLP
`1095 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036-6797
`Telephone: +1 212 698 3500
`Facsimile:
`+1 212 698 3599
`Email: hayoung.park@dechert.com
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Boiron, Inc.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`MELISSA CHAPPELL and KYLIE
`PUTNEY, individually and on behalf of all
`others similarly situated,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`BOIRON, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 4:22-cv-00035-JST
`REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
`AND AUTHORITIES IN FURTHER
`SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT BOIRON,
`INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED CLASS
`ACTION COMPLAINT
`Date:
`June 2, 2022
`Time:
`2:00 P.M.
`6 - 2nd Floor
`Crtrm.:
`Judge:
`Hon. Jon S. Tigar
`FAC Filed: March 18, 2022
`
`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
`
`DECHERT LLP
`A TTO RN EY S A T L A W
`WA S HI NG TO N, DC
`
`REPLY MEMO OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`ISO DEFENDANT BOIRON, INC.’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS / CASE NO. 4:22-CV-00035-JST
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-00035-JST Document 34 Filed 04/22/22 Page 2 of 21
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
`ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 2
`I.
`PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS SHOULD BE DISMISSED UNDER RULE 12(B)(6) .............. 2
`A.
`Plaintiffs Fail to Sufficiently Plead Fraud with Particularity .................................. 2
`B.
`Plaintiffs’ Claims Are “Lack of Substantiation” Claims that Cannot Be
`Brought By Private Litigants .................................................................................. 4
`Plaintiffs Do Not and Cannot Support Claims for False Advertising ..................... 9
`C.
`Plaintiffs Do Not and Cannot Support Claims for Breach of Warranty ............... 11
`D.
`PLAINTIFFS LACK STANDING ................................................................................... 11
`PLAINTIFFS CANNOT COUNTER THAT THE FEDERAL AGENCIES’
`RECENT ACTIVITY SUPPORTS A FINDING OF PREEMPTION OR, IN THE
`ALTERNATIVE, PRIMARY JURSIDICTION ............................................................... 13
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 15
`
`II.
`III.
`
`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
`
`DECHERT LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`LOS ANGELES
`
`- i -
`
`REPLY MEMO OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`ISO DEFENDANT BOIRON, INC.’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS / CASE NO. 4:22-CV-00035-JST
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-00035-JST Document 34 Filed 04/22/22 Page 3 of 21
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Alamilla v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc.,
`30 F. Supp. 3d 943 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ........................................................................................ 8
`
`Astiana v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc.,
`2012 WL 2990766 (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2012) ......................................................................... 13
`
`Astiana v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc.,
`783 F.3d 753 (9th Cir. 2015) ................................................................................................... 14
`
`Bitton v. Gencor Nutrientes, Inc.,
`654 F. App’x 358 (9th Cir. 2016) ....................................................................................... 5, 11
`
`Bronson v. Johnson & Johnson, Inc.,
`2013 WL 1629191 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2013) .................................................................. 5, 6, 9
`
`Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs’ Legal Committee,
`531 U.S. 341 (2001) ................................................................................................................ 14
`
`Cabral v. Supple, LLC,
`2012 WL 12895824 (C.D. Cal. July 3, 2012) ........................................................................... 6
`
`Chavez v. Nestle USA, Inc.,
`511 F. App’x 606 (9th Cir. 2013) ............................................................................................. 5
`
`Clancy v. The Bromley Tea Co.,
`308 F.R.D. 564 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (Tigar, J.) ........................................................................... 12
`
`Conrad v. Boiron, Inc.,
`2015 WL 7008136 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 12, 2015), aff’d, 869 F.3d 536 (7th Cir. 2017) .................. 1
`
`Delarosa v. Boiron, Inc.,
`No. 10-cv-01569 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 28, 2012), Dkt No. 303 ................................................. 1, 10
`
`Dysthe v. Basic Rsch. LLC,
`2011 WL 5868307 (C.D. Cal. June 13, 2011) ........................................................................ 13
`
`Eckler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
`2012 WL 5382218 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2012) ........................................................................ 4, 9
`
`Elgindy v. AGA Serv. Co.,
`2021 WL 1176535 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2021) ...................................................................... 2, 3
`
`Engel v. Novex Biotech LLC,
`2015 WL 846777 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2015), aff’d, 689 F. App’x 510 (9th Cir. 2017) ........ 4, 9
`REPLY MEMO OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`ISO DEFENDANT BOIRON, INC.’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS / CASE NO. 4:22-CV-00035-JST
`
`- ii -
`
`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
`
`DECHERT LLP
`A TTO RN EY S A T L A W
`WA S HI NG TO N, DC
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-00035-JST Document 34 Filed 04/22/22 Page 4 of 21
`
`F.D.I.C. v. Varrasso,
`2012 WL 219046 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2012) .............................................................................. 3
`
`Financial Guaranty Ins. Co. v. Putnam Advisory Co., LLC,
`783 F.3d 395 (2d Cir. 2015) ...................................................................................................... 4
`
`Finnegan v. Church & Dwight Co.,
`2018 WL 10345328 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2018) ............................................................... 8, 9, 10
`
`Forcellati v. Hyland’s, Inc.,
`876 F. Supp. 2d 1155 (C.D. Cal. 2012)................................................................................... 11
`
`Fraker v. Bayer Corp.,
`2009 WL 5865687 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2009) ........................................................................... 10
`
`Gasser v. Kiss My Face, LLC,
`2017 WL 4773426 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2017) ....................................................................... 5, 9
`
`Gomez v. Toledo,
`446 U.S. 635 (1980) .................................................................................................................. 3
`
`Hadley v. Kellogg Sales Co.,
`243 F. Supp. 3d 1074 (N.D. Cal. 2017) .................................................................................. 11
`
`Hernandez v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.,
`2020 WL 2537633 (D.N.J. May 19, 2020) ............................................................................... 9
`
`In re Bang Energy Drink Mktg. Litig.,
`2020 WL 4458916 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2020)......................................................................... 5, 9
`
`In re Clorox Consumer Litig.,
`894 F. Supp. 2d 1224 (N.D. Cal. 2012) .................................................................................... 5
`
`In re Hard Disk Drive Suspension Assemblies Antitrust Litig.,
`2021 WL 4306018 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2021) ................................................................. 12, 13
`
`In re Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Mktg., Sales Pracs., & Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`2017 WL 3058563 (N.D. Cal. July 19, 2017) ......................................................................... 12
`
`Jones v. Micron Tech. Inc.,
`400 F. Supp. 3d 897 (N.D. Cal. 2019) .................................................................................... 12
`
`Jovel v. Boiron, Inc.,
`2014 WL 1027874 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2014) ..................................................................... 1, 10
`
`Kwan v. SanMedica Int’l,
`854 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2017) ................................................................................................... 9
`
`Lewert v. Boiron Inc.,
`742 F. App’x 282 (9th Cir. 2018) ............................................................................................. 1
`REPLY MEMO OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`ISO DEFENDANT BOIRON, INC.’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS / CASE NO. 4:22-CV-00035-JST
`
`- iii -
`
`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
`
`DECHERT LLP
`A TTO RN EY S A T L A W
`WA S HI NG TO N, DC
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-00035-JST Document 34 Filed 04/22/22 Page 5 of 21
`
`Lilly v. Jamba Juice Co.,
`2013 WL 6070503 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2013) (Tigar, J.) ....................................................... 13
`
`Locklin v. StriVectin Operating Co.,
`2022 WL 867248 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2022) .............................................................. 5, 8, 9, 10
`
`Melendres v. Arpaio,
`784 F.3d 1254 (9th Cir. 2015) ........................................................................................... 11, 12
`
`Min Sook Shin v. Umeken, U.S.A., Inc.,
`2017 WL 6885378 (C.D. Cal. June 1, 2017), aff’d sub nom. Min Sook Shin v. Umeken USA,
`Inc., 773 F. App’x 373 (9th Cir. 2019) ................................................................................... 12
`
`Nunez v. Saks Inc.,
`771 F. App’x 401 (9th Cir. 2019) ........................................................................................... 12
`
`Otto v. Abbott Lab’ys, Inc.,
`2013 WL 12132064 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2013) .................................................................... 6, 7
`
`Racies v. Quincy Bioscience, LLC,
`2016 WL 5746307 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2016) ....................................................................... 10
`
`Reed v. NBTY, Inc.,
`2014 WL 12284044 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2014) .................................................................. 6, 11
`
`Robinson Helicopter Co. v. Dana Corp.,
`102 P.3d 268 (Cal. 2004) .......................................................................................................... 4
`
`Sandoval v. PharmaCare US, Inc.,
`730 F. App’x 417 (9th Cir. 2018) ........................................................................................... 10
`
`Sandoz Pharms. Corp. v. Richardson—Vicks, Inc.,
`902 F.2d 222 (3d Cir. 1990) .................................................................................................... 14
`
`United States v. United Healthcare Ins. Co.,
`848 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2016) ................................................................................................... 2
`
`Von Koenig v. Snapple Beverage Corp.,
`713 F. Supp. 2d 1066 (E.D. Cal. 2010) ..................................................................................... 3
`
`Williams v. Gerber Products Co.,
`552 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2008) ........................................................................................... 3, 4, 11
`
`STATUTES
`
`21 U.S.C. § 352(a)(1) .................................................................................................................... 14
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) ................................................................................................................. 2, 3, 4
`REPLY MEMO OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`ISO DEFENDANT BOIRON, INC.’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS / CASE NO. 4:22-CV-00035-JST
`
`- iv -
`
`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
`
`DECHERT LLP
`A TTO RN EY S A T L A W
`WA S HI NG TO N, DC
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-00035-JST Document 34 Filed 04/22/22 Page 6 of 21
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ................................................................................................................... 2
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) ...................................................................................................................... 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
`
`DECHERT LLP
`A TTO RN EY S A T L A W
`WA S HI NG TO N, DC
`
`- v -
`
`REPLY MEMO OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`ISO DEFENDANT BOIRON, INC.’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS / CASE NO. 4:22-CV-00035-JST
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 4:22-cv-00035-JST Document 34 Filed 04/22/22 Page 7 of 21
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The essence of Plaintiffs’ claims here boil down to the following:
`two consumers bought distinct Boiron products based on each label’s general
`representation of pain relief;
`the two products differ but contain the same active ingredient;
`those products did not work;
`a few articles about studies from 12-38 years ago suggest the active ingredient was
`ineffective in providing relief specific to those conditions tested;
`ergo, the representations on the labels that the products provide any relief are false.
`
`These bare anecdotal and abstract allegations are not enough for a complaint to get past the
`pleadings stage. As a result, Plaintiffs’ opposition focuses heavily on prior cases against Boiron
`filed more than five years ago, neglecting to mention those cases involved products and
`representations different from those at issue here, did not include disclaimers stating that these
`products are based on traditional homeopathic practice, not accepted medical evidence, and not
`FDA evaluated, before Boiron offered consumers a money-back guarantee, and prior to when the
`relevant government agencies began reevaluating and revising their guidance on these kinds of
`products. Plaintiffs also neglect to mention that none of these cases were ultimately successful.1
`Plaintiffs’ opposition also argues that their case does not rest on a theory of lack of
`substantiation, but saying it does not make it so. The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) plainly
`states that there is “no” scientific evidence that the active ingredient is effective. This is exactly
`the type of lack of substantiation claim that cannot be brought by private plaintiffs. And the handful
`of dated articles cited by Plaintiffs do not support their bare, conclusory allegations. For these
`reasons, Plaintiffs’ fraud, CLRA, FAL and UCL claims fail.
`
`1 The court in Delarosa v. Boiron, Inc., No. 10-cv-01569 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 28, 2012), Dkt No. 303,
`granted summary judgment on the injunctive relief claim, and case was settled for a modest amount
`(Dkt No. 333). The court in Jovel v. Boiron, Inc., 2014 WL 1027874 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2014),
`denied class certification; and the court in Conrad v. Boiron, Inc., 2015 WL 7008136 (N.D. Ill.
`Nov. 12, 2015), aff’d, 869 F.3d 536 (7th Cir. 2017), struck the class claims. The Ninth Circuit
`affirmed both the jury and the court’s defense verdicts in Lewert v. Boiron Inc., 742 F. App’x 282
`(9th Cir. 2018).
`
`REPLY MEMO OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`ISO DEFENDANT BOIRON, INC.’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS / CASE NO. 4:22-CV-00035
`
`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
`
`DECHERT LLP
`A TTO RN EY S A T L A W
`WA S HI NG TO N, DC
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-00035-JST Document 34 Filed 04/22/22 Page 8 of 21
`
`Plaintiffs’ claims should also be dismissed on the threshold issues of standing and
`preemption as nothing in their opposition addresses these fundamental flaws. The Court should
`grant Boiron’s motion with prejudice.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS SHOULD BE DISMISSED UNDER RULE 12(B)(6)
`A.
`Plaintiffs Fail to Sufficiently Plead Fraud with Particularity
`Plaintiffs concede that because their claims sound in fraud, they must satisfy the heightened
`pleading requirements under Rule 9(b). Opp. at 2. Plaintiffs curiously omit mention of the where
`and the how, yet contend they have adequately pled the who, what and when to survive dismissal.
`Opp. at 2 (lines 6-9). They have not. See Elgindy v. AGA Serv. Co., 2021 WL 1176535, at *4
`(N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2021) (Tigar, J.) (“Averments of fraud must be accompanied by the who, what,
`when, where, and how of the misconduct charged.”) (citation omitted). Their allegation that they
`“used the product as directed and did not experience any pain relief” does not suffice, and while
`Plaintiffs are not required to provide “absolute particularity or a recital of the evidence,” the law
`requires more than what Plaintiffs have alleged.
`Rule 9(b) “requires” that Plaintiffs allege “the particular circumstances surrounding [the]
`representations at issue.” Id. at *11 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The particular
`circumstances that Plaintiffs must allege “include what the alleged misrepresentations ‘specifically
`stated . . . when [the plaintiff] was exposed to them . . . which ones [they] found material,’ and
`which ones ‘[they] relied upon in making [their] decision to buy’ the product.” Id. (citation
`omitted). “[A] plaintiff must set forth more than the neutral facts necessary to identify the
`transaction. The plaintiff must set forth what is false or misleading about a statement, and why it is
`false.” Id. (citation omitted & emphasis in original).
`Plaintiffs fail to meet these basic pleading requirements. Plaintiffs do not explain how
`Boiron’s labels were deceptive. The FAC does not include any allegations identifying the pain
`Plaintiffs were experiencing, the reasons for the purchase of the specific products at issue, how they
`used the products, and for how long, and whether they continued to experience the pain symptoms
`after using the products. Plaintiffs’ “mere conclusory allegations of fraud are insufficient.” United
`REPLY MEMO OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`ISO DEFENDANT BOIRON, INC.’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS / CASE NO. 4:22-CV-00035-JST
`
`- 2 -
`
`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
`
`DECHERT LLP
`A TTO RN EY S A T L A W
`WA S HI NG TO N, DC
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-00035-JST Document 34 Filed 04/22/22 Page 9 of 21
`
`States v. United Healthcare Ins. Co., 848 F.3d 1161, 1180 (9th Cir. 2016) (“Broad allegations that
`include no particularized supporting detail do not suffice.”).
`Indeed, Plaintiffs’ allegations are identical to those in Aloudi v. Intramedic Research Group,
`LLC, where the plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s representation were false because “Plaintiff
`used JavaSLIM as directed, but JavaSLIM did not work as advertised, nor provide any of the
`promised benefits.” 2015 WL 4148381, at *5 (N.D. Cal. July 9, 2015). In their opposition,
`Plaintiffs make no effort to distinguish Aloudi, which found that “Plaintiff’s anecdotal experience
`is not described with the specificity required by Rule 9(b)” and that “more must be said to state a
`claim than ‘the product did not work.’” Id. (citation omitted).
`The cases cited by Plaintiffs are inapposite and further demonstrate the deficiencies in
`Plaintifs’ fraud allegations.2 In Elgindy, this Court found that “the ‘where’ and ‘how’ have been
`demonstrated by Plaintiffs’ inclusion of exemplary screenshots of the allegedly deceptive offers,
`and their description of how those offers were misleading.” Id. at *12. Likewise, in Von Koenig
`v. Snapple Beverage Corp., 713 F. Supp. 2d 1066, 1077 (E.D. Cal. 2010), the court found that the
`plaintiffs pled fraud with particularity where they alleged that the product labels containing the
`term “All Natural” were deceiving because the products contained high fructose corn syrup which
`they alleged is not a natural product. There are no such allegations here, nor any explanation as to
`how Boiron’s labels could be deceptive.
`Nor does Plaintiffs’ citation to Williams v. Gerber Products Co., 552 F.3d 934 (9th Cir.
`2008)), save their claims. Unlike in Williams, Boiron is not relying on an “ingredient list” or
`obscure “small prints on the side of the box” to claim it can provide any representation on its label.
`To the contrary. Boiron’s disclosures on homeopathy appeared on both the front and back of the
`product label and the labels make clear that the Arnicare Products are not FDA evaluated. In fact,
`the words “homeopathy” or “homeopathic” appear three times on the front label of Arnicare Cream
`
`2 Plaintiffs rely on F.D.I.C. v. Varrasso, 2012 WL 219046, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2012), for the
`proposition that “plaintiffs need not anticipate and attempt to plead around all potential defenses,”
`but Varrasso did not address the pleading requirements under Rule 9(b). Nor did Gomez v. Toledo,
`446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980), in which the Supreme Court declined to “impos[e] on the plaintiff an
`obligation to anticipate . . . a [qualified immunity] defense by stating in his complaint that the
`defendant acted in bad faith.”
`
`- 3 -
`
`REPLY MEMO OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`ISO DEFENDANT BOIRON, INC.’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS / CASE NO. 4:22-CV-00035-JST
`
`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
`
`DECHERT LLP
`A TTO RN EY S A T L A W
`WA S HI NG TO N, DC
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-00035-JST Document 34 Filed 04/22/22 Page 10 of 21
`
`and twice on the front label of Arnicare Tablets.3 Boiron’s disclosures about homeopathy, and that
`the claims are not based on accepted medical evidence were clear and truthful, and Plaintiffs’
`reliance on Williams is misplaced.
`Finally, even if Rule 9(b) allows for intent to be alleged generally, it does not relieve
`Plaintiffs of their burden to “state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud . . . .” Fed.
`R. Civ. P. 9(b). And Plaintiffs are still required to sufficiently allege fraudulent intent, an element
`of a claim for fraud. See Robinson Helicopter Co. v. Dana Corp., 102 P.3d 268, 274 (Cal. 2004).
`In Financial Guaranty Ins. Co. v. Putnam Advisory Co., LLC, 783 F.3d 395, 405 (2d Cir. 2015),
`the court found the allegations of fraudulent intent sufficient because “[t]he SAC specifically
`alleges . . . that Putnam was motivated to cooperate with Magnetar’s scheme in exchange for
`unusually lucrative collateral management fees and additional business.” Such allegations of
`fraudulent intent are absent from the FAC here.
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Claims Are “Lack of Substantiation” Claims that Cannot Be
`Brought By Private Litigants
`Plaintiffs’ attempt to recast their claims as based on allegations of Boiron’s labeling on the
`Arnicare Products being provably false does not change the fact that their claims are based on a
`lack of substantiation theory. The allegations in Plaintiffs’ FAC make clear that this is the basis
`for their claims. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege: “Defendant lacks scientifically valid substantiation
`for its claims that Arnica Products provide pain relief or other medicinal benefits.” FAC ¶ 53; Opp.
`at 5. Plaintiffs further allege in the FAC that “[t]here is no definitive medical evidence that Arnica
`is effective for any purpose” and that “all available, reliable, scientific evidence demonstrates that
`Arnica has no efficacy, and is ineffective at providing pain relief.” FAC ¶ 34 (emphasis added).
`Allegations that there is no scientific evidence to support the advertising are quintessential lack of
`substantiation claims. See, e.g., Engel v. Novex Biotech LLC, 2015 WL 846777, at *4-5 (N.D. Cal.
`Feb. 25, 2015), aff’d, 689 F. App’x 510 (9th Cir. 2017) (finding the complaint’s allegation that
`“[n]o published reports . . . were found supportive of the represented 682% HGH increase” to be
`“a substantiation claim”); Eckler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2012 WL 5382218, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov.
`
`3 Park Decl., Exs. 9, Dkt. No. 27-9, 11, Dkt. No. 27-11.
`
`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
`
`DECHERT LLP
`A TTO RN EY S A T L A W
`WA S HI NG TO N, DC
`
`- 4 -
`
`REPLY MEMO OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`ISO DEFENDANT BOIRON, INC.’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS / CASE NO. 4:22-CV-00035-JST
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-00035-JST Document 34 Filed 04/22/22 Page 11 of 21
`
`1, 2012) (finding the plaintiff’s claims that “there are no competent or well-designed clinical studies
`that support Wal–Mart’s joint comfort, renewal and rejuvenation representations” to be
`“unsubstantiated”). In fact, the portion of the FAC Plaintiffs quote to allege that their claims are
`allegedly based on provable falsity is another example of their lack of substantiation theory:
`“numerous scientific studies, performed by independent researchers and published in reputable
`medical journals, have been conducted on arnica, and they have demonstrated that arnica does not
`provide pain relief, and is not effective in the treatment or improvement of pain.” Opp. at 5 (quoting
`FAC ¶ 34). Therefore, looking at the FAC as a whole confirms that Plaintiffs are pursuing lack of
`substantiation claims, and Plaintiffs cannot argue in an opposition brief a different theory.
`To “survive a lack of substantiation challenge,” moreover, Plaintiffs cannot “rel[y] on a lack
`of scientific evidence or inconclusive, rather than contradictory, evidence.” Bronson v. Johnson &
`Johnson, Inc., 2013 WL 1629191, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2013). “A claim can survive a lack of
`substantiation challenge by, for example, alleging studies showing that a defendant’s statement is
`false.” Bronson, 2013 WL 1629191, at *8. None of the cases cited by Plaintiffs support Plaintiffs’
`claims that their allegations are enough to survive a motion to dismiss. In re Bang Energy Drink
`Mktg. Litig., 2020 WL 4458916, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2020), “d[id] not challenge the
`effectiveness of [the ingredients of defendant’s product]” but “allege[d] that independent testing
`shows that these ingredients are not in fact present in [defendant’s products], or occur in trace
`amounts too low to impart any of the benefits [defendant] advertises.” In each of Plaintiffs’
`remaining cited cases, the plaintiff made specific allegations or presented evidence that
`contradicted the defendant’s advertisement, thereby proving falsehood.4
`
`4 See In re Clorox Consumer Litig., 894 F. Supp. 2d 1224, 1232–33 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (“Plaintiffs
`then allege that two scientific studies commissioned by C & D directly contradict these
`representations. . . . Thus, Plaintiffs do more than allege that there is no competent scientific
`evidence to support Clorox’s claims; they allege that the competent scientific evidence shows that
`Clorox’s claims are objectively false.”); Bitton v. Gencor Nutrientes, Inc., 654 F. App’x 358, 362
`(9th Cir. 2016) (“Plaintiffs append to their complaint an expert report stating that the trial’s results
`as to free testosterone were not statistically significant.”); Chavez v. Nestle USA, Inc., 511 F. App’x
`606, 607 (9th Cir. 2013) (alleging that “the product actually contains very small amounts of the
`touted ingredient, DHA”); Locklin v. StriVectin Operating Co., 2022 WL 867248, at *4 (N.D. Cal.
`Mar. 23, 2022) (“[Plaintiff] instead asserts that StriVectin’s ‘reef safe’ label is outright false. By
`alleging that the sunscreen contains chemicals that directly threaten coral reefs, the complaint
`identifies ‘specific facts pointing to actual falsehood.’”); Gasser v. Kiss My Face, LLC, 2017 WL
`REPLY MEMO OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`ISO DEFENDANT BOIRON, INC.’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS / CASE NO. 4:22-CV-00035-JST
`
`- 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
`
`DECHERT LLP
`A TTO RN EY S A T L A W
`WA S HI NG TO N, DC
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-00035-JST Document 34 Filed 04/22/22 Page 12 of 21
`
`Here, Plaintiffs make no allegations claiming that Boiron’s statements are false. The studies
`that Plaintiffs rely on to allege falsehood are all “inconclusive, rather than contradictory, evidence”
`which “is not sufficient to state a claim.” See Bronson, 2013 WL 1629191, at *8; see also Reed v.
`NBTY, Inc., 2014 WL 12284044, at *14 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2014) (“Inconclusive findings and
`unsettled science are insufficient to meet Plaintiff’s burden of raising a question of fact on the issue
`of falsity.”). As discussed in detail in Boiron’s opening brief, those studies reached narrow and
`limited findings regarding the efficacy of arnica tested for discreet conditions not alleged in the
`complaint, rather than conclusively finding that arnica does not provide any pain relief as Plaintiffs
`allege. Mem. at 6-9. Where, as here, studies cited by a plaintiff only reach a narrow conclusion on
`the efficacy of an ingredient, courts have declined to rely on those studies as the basis for allegations
`of falsehood of defendant’s statements on their products. See Otto v. Abbott Lab’ys, Inc., 2013 WL
`12132064, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2013) (finding certain studies concluding that supplementation
`of an ingredient in defendant’s products produced “negligible muscle benefits in young individuals
`undergoing a mandatory resistance training program” to be “irrelevant” where defendant’s products
`“only promise to ‘help rebuild muscle and strength naturally lost over time,” and noting that “the
`mere fact that the Products do not benefit young adults under an exercise regimen does not logically
`imply that the Products cannot aid the non-exercising general public, including the elderly and
`infirm”).
`Additionally, the four studies cited by Plaintiffs are more than a decade old, with one having
`been conducted in 1984.5 Most of these studies did not even test Boiron’s Arnicare Products and
`none of them tested the actual products Plaintiffs allegedly purchased. Even the one study that
`involved Boiron’s products, which is from 2010, does not contradict Boiron’s statement that its
`
`4773426, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2017) (“Plaintiffs’ false advertising claim is premised on the
`allegation that the statements are false because KMF’s ingredients are not natural.”); Cabral v.
`Supple, LLC, 2012 WL 12895824, at *1–2 (C.D. Cal. July 3, 2012) (finding the complaint to
`“explain exactly how [Supple]’s claims are false and elaborate[e] on [Supple]’s scheme to mislead
`the consuming public as to the uses, benefits, and effectiveness of [the Beverage]’s key ingredients”
`where plaintiff alleges that Supple “misleads the consuming public by touting the ‘clinically proven
`effective ingredients’ found in [the Beverage], and then relying on clinical trials of an ingredient
`not found in its product to back up its bold marketing and advertising claims”).
`5 See Park Decl., Exs. 19-22, Dkt. Nos. 27-19 – 27-22.
`
`- 6 -
`
`REPLY MEMO OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`ISO DEFENDANT BOIRON, INC.’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS / CASE NO. 4:22-CV-00035-JST
`
`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
`
`DECHERT LLP
`A TTO RN EY S A T L A W
`WA S HI NG TO N, DC
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-00035-JST Document 34 Filed 04/22/22 Page 13 of 21
`
`products provide pain relief because it only reached a narrow finding that “[r]ather than decreasing
`leg pain, arnica was found to increase leg pain 24 hours after eccentric calf exercise” but that
`“[t]his effect did not extend to the 48-hour measurement.”6 In fact, the studies cited by Plaintiffs
`include evidence contradictory to Plaintiffs’ broad, conclusory allegations. For example, the 2010
`study recognized other studies that have found topical arnica gel to help reduce pain similar to
`topical ibuprofen gel, such as “significantly reduc[ing] osteoarthiritis index scores” and having
`“beneficial effects . . . on reducing muscle soreness from immediately after to 42 hours after
`marathon running.”7 Neither Plaintiff alleges they bought Boiron’s products to alleviate pain for
`their eccentric calf exercises, and, even if they did, Boiron doesn’t advertise that it relieves pain
`from eccentric calf exercises. Accordingly, the studies Plaintiffs rely on do not plausibly support
`the conclusion that there is no evidence that the Arnicare Products do not deliver any pain relief.
`See Otto, 2013 WL 12132064, at *6 (concluding that the studies do not support a plausible claim
`for relief where “none of the articles are apposite as they fail to test the precise combination of
`ingredients in the Products” and some of the studies contradicted the plaintiff’s allegations).
`Plaintiffs’ argument claiming homeopathy is a sham is also insufficient to survive a lack of
`substantiation challenge and prove falsity of Boiron’s statements. Like the plaintiff in Aloudi who
`alleged that the defendant’s representations were false because “there is a scientific consensus that
`‘magic pills’ containing caffeine