Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

District Court Decertifies Class Where Damages Model Did Not Satisfy Supreme Court’s Requirements as Set Forth in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend

December 31, 2014 by Carlton Fields

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California recently granted a defendant’s motion to decertify a class because plaintiff’s damages model was not consistent with his theory of liability as required by the Supreme Court in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend. Plaintiff alleged that defendant’s false and misleading labeling of almond milk products violated California law, bringing claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act. On October 2, 2013, the court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding, inter alia, that the plaintiff had standing to bring class claims. On January 17, 2014, plaintiff moved for class certification, which the court granted in part. The court refused to certify an injunctive class, but granted the motion to certify a damages class of California consumers under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). Of the three damages models offered by plaintiff’s expert, the court found that one, a regression model, was consistent with plaintiff’s theory of liability and therefore met the requirements of Comcast Corp. v. Behrend.

On October 30, 2014, defendant filed a motion to decertify the damages class. Before addressing certification, the court determined that a supplemental report by plaintiff’s expert was both untimely and not a true supplement, as it was based on information available to the expert at the time of his first report. Because an expert may not introduce new opinions under the pretense of submitting a supplemental report, the court excluded the new report under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c).

The court then granted defendant’s motion to decertify the class. The court clarified that on a motion to decertify, the burden remains with the plaintiff to show that the requirements of Rule 23 have been met. Furthermore, in order to satisfy Comcast, a plaintiff’s damages model must be consistent with his theory of liability. In a case based on mislabeling, damages must compensate a consumer for the difference between the true value of the product received and the value of the product as labeled. Plaintiff’s expert calculated damages using a hedonic regression analysis. The court agreed with the defendant that the expert’s model did not control for other factors that affected the price of the product and conflated the effect of mislabeling with the value of the brand. Because the damages model did not isolate the harm related to the alleged mislabeling or control for the effect of advertising, it was insufficient under Comcast. The court also noted that the expert’s model was problematic due to its assumption that competitors’ products did not use the same labeling. As the plaintiff’s theory of damages was not limited to the theory of liability, the court found that plaintiff had failed to satisfy predominance under Rule 23(b)(3) and therefore granted defendant’s motion to decertify the class.

Werdebaugh v. Blue Diamond Growers, No. 12-CV-02724 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2014).

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

Third Circuit Weighs In On Burden of Proof and Evidentiary Standards Applicable to Cases Removed Under CAFA

Next Article »

Will 2015 Be The Year of the Data Breach Class Action?: Target Data Breach Claims Survive Motions to Dismiss
Avatar

About Carlton Fields

Get Weekly Updates!

2020 Class Action Survey – Now Available!

DOWNLOAD NOW
Carlton Fields Logo A blog focused on the latest class action developments and trends by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Search

Topics

Industries/Practices
  • Construction
  • Consumer Finance & Banking
  • Food & Beverage
  • Health Care
  • Insurance
  • Labor, Employment & ERISA
  • Manufacturing & Products
  • Pharmaceutical
  • Privacy & Technology
  • Securities
  • Telecommunications

Substantive/Procedural
  • Arbitration
  • CAFA
  • Certification
    • Adequacy
    • Ascertainability
    • Commonality
    • Numerosity
    • Predominance
    • Superiority
    • Typicality
  • Decertification
  • Settlements
  • Standing
  • Striking of Class Allegations

Courts/Jurisdiction
  • Federal District Courts
  • Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal
  • United States Supreme Court
  • State Courts

Monthly Archives

Recent Articles

  • MDL Court Denies Class Certification of Proposed “NAS Babies” Class
  • What’s Good for Trial Is Good for Class Certification: Fifth Circuit Rules That Daubert Applies at Class Certification Stage
  • One Game, One Stadium: Eleventh Circuit Spikes Collateral Challenge to Tampa Bay Buccaneers Proposed Class Action Settlement

Get Weekly Updates!

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • Class Action Survey

Related Industries/Practices

  • National Class Actions
  • National Trial Practice
  • Appellate & Trial Support
  • Our Class Action Experience

Classified: The Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact

Classified Logo
© 2014–2021 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.