Overview

HOLDINGS: [1]-A consumer’s putative class action, claiming that a manufacturer mislabeled its beverages as “almond milk” when they should have been labeled as “imitation milk” under 21 C.F.R. § 101.3(e)(1), was properly dismissed because under 21 U.S.C.S. § 343-1(a)(2), “mislabeling” claims that sought to use state law to impose labeling requirements not identical to those under 21 U.S.C.S. § 343(c) were preempted; [2]-Under state law, the consumer could not plausibly allege that a reasonable consumer would be deceived into believing that the almond milk products were nutritionally equivalent to dairy milk based on their package labels and advertising; [3]-The consumer was judicially estopped from requesting on appeal that the court invoke primary jurisdiction where she successfully argued against the applicability of the primary jurisdiction doctrine before the district court. Appellant was represented by a business attorney.

Outcome

Judgment affirmed.

Procedural Posture

Plaintiffs sued defendants, debt collectors, pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C.S. § 1692 et seq., and the California Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Rosenthal Act), Cal. Civ. Code § 1788. Plaintiffs moved for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

Overview

Plaintiffs claimed that the debt collectors demanded excessive collection fees and interest and made false or deceptive statements to collect the debts. The court found that because amendments to the Rosenthal Act referenced 15 U.S.C.S. § 1692k of the FDCPA, class actions were possible for Rosenthal Act violations. Plaintiffs could not request injunctive or declaratory relief under the FDCPA. Plaintiffs satisfied the numerosity, commonality and adequate representation elements of Rule 23(a). However, plaintiffs failed to adequately address the typicality element for class certification. Since the FDCPA did not allow private plaintiffs to obtain equitable relief, Rule 23(b)(2) did not support class certification in this suit. Nothing in the proposed class definitions related to the likelihood of future violations by one of the debt collectors. To resolve the remaining issues in plaintiffs’ motions for class certification, the court would allow plaintiffs 20 days leave to file supplemental briefing supporting class certification and to address whether plaintiffs met the requirements of Rule 23(a)(3) and (b)(3).

Outcome

With regard to the motion for class certification, plaintiffs failed to meet the typicality requirements and class certification was in appropriate at this time. Plaintiffs had 20 days to file supplemental briefing to support class certification.