Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.
Consumers who purchased Just for Men hair dye and suffered severe allergic reactions urged a federal judge last week to deny the defendants’ “severely premature” motion to strike the plaintiffs’ claims and dismiss their proposed class action lawsuit.
The Just for Men class action lawsuit, which was previously reported at TopClassActions.com, alleges that Just for Men brand hair dye does not properly warn consumers about its ingredients and their potential side effects, such as burns, scarring, anaphylactic shock, and other severe allergic reactions. The lawsuit asserts that the Just for Men packaging is misleading and deceptive in violation of Missouri law, and asks the court to certify a Class of all Missouri residents who purchased Just for Men hair dye.
Combe Inc. and the other defendants, owners of the Just for Men brand, filed a motion to strike the class action claims from the complaint. The defendants argued that lead plaintiff Ronald Povich cannot be a class representative, because he does not “possess the same interest and suffer the same injury as the Class Members.” In his complaint, Povich did not claim that he experienced a burning or allergic reaction from using the hair dye. The Defendants claim because of this, he cannot represent a class of people who were injured from the Just for Men product.
Plaintiff Povich responds that the class action lawsuit is not seeking damages for people who were injured, it is seeking economic losses for all purchasers of Just for Men hair dye. Povich’s July 20 response contends that “In this case, Plaintiffs have alleged only claims pursuant to the MMPA and unjust enrichment for economic damages,” and therefore, “Plaintiff Povich is an adequate class representative.”
Similarly, the defendants argued that the class action claims should be dismissed by the court, because issues like injury from the hair dye or reliance on the product packaging are more individual, and do not “predominate” over class-wide issues. The class counsel again argue that they are not seeking damages for injured persons, and the legality of the Just for Men safety warning is the primary issue, and is common to every potential person in the class.
The Just for Men hair dye defendants also disputed that Povich has the legal ability to bring this class action lawsuit, because he was not actually injured by the product. However, Povich responds that under Missouri consumer protection law, “plaintiffs need only allege that the product purchased ‘was worth less than the product as represented.’”
The complaint alleges that “Defendants knowingly misrepresented the safety of their products,” and therefore the Just for Men hair dye was worth less to each and every person who purchased it, including Lead Plaintiff Povich.
Povich is represented by John J. Driscoll and Philip Sholtz of The Driscoll Firm, PC, and Richard W. Schulte of Wright & Schulte, LLC.
The Just For Men Burning Hair Dye Class Action Lawsuit is Ronald Povich v. Combe Inc., et al., Case No. 4:16-cv-00097, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
UPDATE: On March 21, 2017, the Povich v Combe Just For Men class action lawsuit was dismissed.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING
Top Class Actions is a Proud Member of the American Bar Association
LEGAL INFORMATION IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE
Top Class Actions Legal Statement
©2008 – 2024 Top Class Actions® LLC
Various Trademarks held by their respective owners
This website is not intended for viewing or usage by European Union citizens.