Pfizer Inc. v. Superior Court

Good Law
105 Cal. Rptr. 3d 795·182 Cal. App. 4th 622·2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 281
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 25, 2010B188106California3,894 words

Opinion

Opinion

Klein, J.

Defendant Pfizer Inc. (Pfizer), the manufacturer of Listerine mouthwash, seeks a writ of mandate to overturn respondent superior court’s November 22, 2005 order certifying a class action filed by plaintiff and real party in interest Steve Galfano (Galfano). The complaint, brought pursuant to the unfair competition law (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.) and the false advertising law (FAL) (§ 17500 et seq.), alleges Pfizer marketed Listerine in a misleading manner by representing the use of Listerine can replace the use of dental floss in reducing plaque and gingivitis.

The trial court certified a class of “all persons who purchased Listerine, in California, from June 2004 through January 7, 2005.” In our previous decision in this matter, filed July 11, 2006, we granted Pfizer’s petition for writ of mandate, concluding the trial court’s ruling, which certified a class consisting of all persons who purchased Listerine in California during a six-month period, was overbroad.

The Supreme Court granted review. On August 19, 2009, the Supreme Court transferred the matter back to this court with directions that we vacate our decision and reconsider the matter in light of…

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.