Caro

Caro v. Procter & Gamble Co.

Good Law
18 Cal. App. 4th 644·1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 900·22 Cal. Rptr. 2d 419·93 Daily Journal DAR 11299·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6668
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 31, 1993D016720California8,903 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kremer, J.

Plaintiff Stephen J. Caro appeals an order denying his motion for class certification of his lawsuit against defendants The Procter & Gamble Company (P&G), N.W. Ayer, Inc. (Ayer), and The Vons Companies, Inc. (Vons). Caro contends in denying class certification the superior court applied improper legal criteria, impermissibly weighed the lawsuit’s merits, and made unsupported findings about the atypicality of Caro’s claims and the predominance of individual questions over common issues. We affirm the order.

I

Caro’s Complaint

In April 1991 Caro filed a class action complaint against defendants for fraud and deceit; negligent misrepresentation; unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practice (Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 17200, 17500); violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) (Civ. Code, § 1750 et seq.); unjust enrichment and imposition of constructive trust; breach of contract and rescission; misbranding food (Health & Saf. Code, § 26566); and falsely advertising food (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 26460, 26461).

Caro’s complaint alleged: Defendants falsely represented various P&G “Citrus Hill” products to be fresh orange juice, made from the heart of the orange, 100…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.