Howard
Howard v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc.
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
TRACY HOWARD, et al., Case No. 22-cv-00527-VC
Plaintiffs,
ORDER REQUESTING
v. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING
HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC., Re: Dkt. No. 98 Defendant.
The parties are ordered to submit supplemental letter briefs on the following questions: 1. It’s obvious that that the proposed class for the fraud-based claims is overbroad because it includes parents who purchased the products for children who were not under two. The Court is tentatively of the view that the same is true of the proposed class for the UCL unlawful claim. According to the plaintiffs’ theory, the nutrient content claims are “unlawful” because they are misbranded. But misbranding is not injurious simply because it violates the law; it is injurious because it risks misleading people. In this case, the only people who risk being misled by the misbranding are parents purchasing the products for children under two. And presumably a high percentage of the proposed class members do not fall in that category. The parties should discuss this issue and cite to any case law (whether or not it supports them) on…