Cochoit v. Schiff Nutrition International, Inc.

Citations: 227 F. Supp. 3d 1119; 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5043; 2017 WL 83507Docket: Case No.: SACV 16-01371-CJC(KESx)

Court: District Court, C.D. California; January 4, 2017; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Plaintiff Marilyn Cochoit initiated a consumer protection class action against Defendants Schiff Nutrition International, Inc., Schiff Nutrition Group, Inc., Ganeden Biotech, Inc., and Reckitt Benckiser LLC, alleging false and misleading advertising regarding their 'Digestive Advantage' probiotic products. Reckitt Benckiser filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, claiming that the case is barred by res judicata due to a previous federal action (Burton v. Ganeden Biotech, Inc.) concerning similar claims about the product's survivability and effectiveness. The court denied the motion, stating that the claims in the current action are not identical to those in the Burton case. Cochoit alleges that the advertisements make unsupported claims about the product's effectiveness, specifically the "100x better survivability" compared to yogurt, which she argues lacks credible scientific backing. She purchased the product based on these claims and seeks to establish a class action for various violations of California consumer protection laws. The class includes all U.S. purchasers of the product based on the contested advertising claims.

Federal law mandates that in diversity cases, courts apply the preclusion rules of the state where the court is located. This action, brought under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), requires the application of California’s res judicata principles. The elements of res judicata in California include: 1) the current claim or issue must be identical to one litigated previously; 2) the prior proceeding resulted in a final judgment on the merits; and 3) the party against whom res judicata is asserted was involved in the prior proceeding. California law assesses the identity of causes of action by examining the primary rights at stake, focusing on the harm suffered rather than the specific legal theories or facts presented. Furthermore, California recognizes that res judicata bars not only litigated claims but also claims that could have been raised.

In the current case, Reckitt Benckiser contends that the harm claimed by the Plaintiff is the same as that in a previous action (Burton), arguing there are no new facts or conditions. However, the Plaintiff counters that the case at hand revolves around new advertising claims, specifically the assertion that Digestive Advantage is "100x" better than other probiotics, which was not part of the earlier Burton litigation filed in 2011 and settled in 2012. Since the new advertising was introduced only in 2014, the changes in facts allow for reexamination of the issues, as res judicata does not apply when new facts alter the legal rights of the parties.

The case distinguishes between two lawsuits aimed at preventing misleading advertising, each addressing different claims. The Burton plaintiffs contested an advertising campaign asserting that Sustenex provides various health benefits, including immune system enhancement and digestive health support. In contrast, the current plaintiff challenges claims that Digestive Advantage is significantly more effective than competing probiotics. Although both advertising claims may be deemed misleading for similar reasons—due to the probiotics' inability to survive in the human stomach—the cases do not share the same primary rights. Consequently, the defendants cannot avoid all misleading advertising claims based on a prior settlement regarding a different advertising scheme. The court finds that the first element of res judicata is not met, eliminating the need to assess the other elements. As a result, the court denies the motion to dismiss the complaint and vacates the scheduled hearing. The court grants the defendant's request for judicial notice concerning the Burton complaint, determining it is a reliable source for reference.