Hutson v. Rexall Sundown, Inc.

Citations: 837 So. 2d 1090; 2003 WL 355242Docket: 4D02-687

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; February 18, 2003; Florida; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Jacqueline Hutson and Ruth Blecher appeal the denial of their motion to certify a nationwide class action against Rexall Sundown, Inc. regarding deceptive trade practices related to their "Calcium 900" and "Calcium 1200" products. Hutson's amended complaint alleges that these products were marketed as containing higher amounts of calcium than they actually did, violating the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) and resulting in unjust enrichment for the company. The trial court found that the appellants did not meet the requirements of typicality, adequacy, predominance, superiority, and manageability as outlined in Florida Rule 1.220 for class certification. Rexall Sundown argued against the certification on several grounds, including that Hutson could not represent purchasers of Calcium 1200 and that the FDUTPA should not apply to non-Florida residents. The court did permit Blecher to join as a plaintiff but ultimately affirmed the denial of the nationwide class certification without prejudice, allowing for a potential limited class certification in the future. The review standard focused on whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the national class action certification.

A party seeking class certification must meet the criteria of rule 1.220(a) and establish one of the three requirements under rule 1.220(b). Appellants pursued certification under rule 1.220(b)(3), which necessitates that common questions of law or fact predominate over individual issues and that class representation is superior for fair adjudication. The court must consider all relevant facts, including potential management issues of the class claims.

Appellants argued that the trial court abused its discretion by ruling they did not meet the typicality and adequacy requirements of rule 1.220(a). They referenced *Davis v. Powertel, Inc.*, where the court reversed a denial of class certification, emphasizing that proof of individual reliance was unnecessary as all claims shared a common defect reducing the value of the phones. 

In the current case, the trial court determined that the claims of individuals who read product labels differed significantly from those who did not, as the former could not claim damages due to their knowledge of the product. The trial court concluded that individuals with actual knowledge of the softgel dosage would not have suffered damages from the alleged deceptive practices, thus lacking a cause of action. Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the appellants failed to satisfy the typicality requirement, as the proposed class included individuals who had no valid claims under FDUTPA due to lack of damages from the alleged deceptive practices.

Appellants contest the trial court's ruling on class action adequacy, arguing it was an abuse of discretion to deny certification for a class representing purchasers of Calcium 1200 when appellants only bought Calcium 900. They assert that all purchasers were victims of the same alleged deceptive marketing scheme. However, the court disagrees, stating that under Rule 1.220, appellants cannot represent those who purchased Calcium 1200 since they lack individual standing to do so. 

The trial court determined that individual factual issues predominate, which prevents class certification. It found that claims under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) and for unjust enrichment require assessment of individual circumstances, such as whether each class member read the product label or was aware of the elemental calcium content. This indicates that the proposed class, which includes consumers with varying knowledge about the product, would lead to unmanageable individual inquiries.

Appellants also argue that common questions of law should predominate in a nationwide class action, referencing the case Renaissance Cruises, Inc. v. Glassman, which involved a deceptive trade practice claim under FDUTPA. They contend that, like Renaissance, there are sufficient contacts with Florida to apply its law to all class members. However, the court distinguishes this case, noting the common injury occurred in Florida, and emphasizes that the findings in Renaissance do not override the precedent established in Coastal Physician Services of Broward County, Inc. v. Ortiz, which limited FDUTPA protections to Florida residents. The court maintains that while common legal questions may exist, the predominance of individual factual inquiries and the nature of the claims do not support class action certification.

The case parallels Stone v. CompuServe Interactive Services, Inc., where plaintiffs aimed to certify a nationwide class due to a breach of contract concerning rebates. The court determined that contracts were completed upon the purchase of computers, applying the law of the buyer's state. It distinguished this from Renaissance, where Florida law could apply due to sufficient contacts. In the current matter, the alleged deceptive trade practice involved misleading marketing for products sold nationwide, impacting consumers in Florida and 49 other states. The trial court concluded that common legal issues did not predominate because claims from non-resident consumers would necessitate applying various state consumer protection laws. Thus, the court affirmed the denial of the nationwide class certification for purchasers of Rexall Sundown Calcium 900 and 1200, allowing for potential certification of a Florida-only class. Additionally, a New Jersey court denied a similar nationwide class but certified a class for New Jersey residents under specific conditions. The product labels specified dosage instructions that were part of the claims against the company.