In Lytle v. Nutramax Laboratories, Inc., 114 F.4th 1011 (9th Cir.), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed two key issues arising in motions for class certification: (1) whether plaintiffs’ proposed unexecuted damages model is sufficient at the class certification stage; and (2) whether plaintiffs adequately demonstrated reliance was provable by common evidence.
Plaintiffs Justin Lytle and Christine Musthaler (“Plaintiffs”) alleged Nutramax Laboratories of violating the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) by marketing Cosequin, a pet health product, with misleading claims about its benefits for dogs’ joint health. The district court certified a class of California purchasers exposed to the following four statements that appeared on Cosequin’s packaging: Lytle, 114 F.4th 1011, 1020.
- “Joint Health Supplement”;
- “Use Cosequin to help your pet Climb stairs, Rise and Jump!”;
- “Supports Mobility for a Healthy…