Johnson v. General Mills, Inc.
Facts
Johnson brought UCL and CLRA claims alleging that defendants falsely represented that YoPlus yogurt promoted digestive health through packaging and other marketing, including television, print, internet, and direct mail advertising. The court had previously certified a class based on common questions concerning whether defendants communicated a digestive-health representation, whether it was material, whether it was true, and how damages should be calculated. The fourth generation packaging, which appeared around January 2011, retained the YoPlus name, mentioned probiotics, compared YoPlus to Activia, and was displayed on a website that still stated YoPlus was yogurt to improve digestive health, but the package itself no longer contained an explicit digestive-health statement. Defendants argued that including purchasers of this packaging would defeat commonality, predominance, and typicality because Johnson himself did not buy the fourth generation package.
Issue
Whether the certified class should continue to include purchasers of YoPlus in the fourth generation packaging, even though that package did not expressly state a digestive-health claim. More specifically, the question was whether including those purchasers defeats Rule 23 commonality, predominance, or typicality.
Rule
Commonality under Rule 23(a)(2) is satisfied when class members' claims depend on a common contention capable of classwide resolution, such that determining its truth or falsity resolves an issue central to each claim in one stroke. Predominance is satisfied when the central question remains whether defendants made a materially false representation that would deceive or matter to reasonable consumers, even if some individualized proof may later be needed on damages or purchase causation. Typicality under Rule 23(a)(3) is satisfied under permissive standards when the representative's claims are reasonably co-extensive with those of absent class members, not necessarily identical.
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
- The court's holding and reasoning
- Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
- 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Test yourself
Consumers seek to keep purchasers of the new package in an already certified California UCL and CLRA class. BrightLeaf argues commonality is destroyed because the package itself no longer states the challenged representation. How should the court rule?