Cert. Denied in Mott’s ‘No Sugar Added’ Class Action Lawsuit

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.

A judge has dealt a setback to a Mott’s “No Sugar Added” class action lawsuit by deciding to deny certification based on concerns regarding damage calculations.

The lead plaintiff had sought to certify a Class of consumers who bought Mott’s apple juice when the packaging contained the phrase “no sugar added.” According to the Mott’s class action lawsuit, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration requires that food and beverage makers who include that term must also include information noting that the product is not reduced calorie or necessarily lower in calories.

In fact, the Mott’s class action lawsuit complaint had satisfied many of the requirements for Class certification. U.S. District Judge Susan Illston noted that the lead plaintiff would be a typical representative of the Class in that he was a purchaser of the apple juice and relied on the “no sugar added” claim, believing that it would be healthier. In addition, the number of people who purchased Mott’s apple juice would be large enough that joining them together as a Class would make sense.

Where the judge took exception was with the plaintiff’s lack of clarity regarding what kind of Class would be certified. She found the class action lawsuit to be unclear about whether the plaintiff sought to certify a damages Class, or whether he wished to let Class Members pursue individual damages claims against Mott’s.

“In any event, none of these options is particularly desirable,” Judge Illston wrote. If the plaintiff was successful in finding Mott’s liable, “certifying a second class on the issue of damages would in essence amount to prosecuting two trials when one would have done just as well,” she continued. “Alternatively, allowing myriad individual claims to go forward hardly seams like a reasonable or efficient alternative, particularly in such a case as this where the average Class Member is likely to have suffered less than a hundred dollars in damages.”

Judge Illston noted that in most cases the whole point of class action lawsuits is to streamline ligation as much as possible. With the plaintiff only seeking certification for a liability Class based on violations of California’s Sherman Act and the Unfair Competition Law but without providing a way to assess damages, the judge thought it would add more time in court rather than less.

More importantly, while lead plaintiff’s type-2 diabetes diagnosis did not mean he was not an adequate or typical Class representative for most requirements of Class certification, it did affect the damages calculations. For example, while the value of a low-calorie beverage to him might be significant, the premium another consumer might pay could be much less.

The plaintiff is represented by Jordan L. Lurie, David L Cheng, Sue J Kim, Sharon G. Yaacobi and Arvin Ratanavongse of Capstone Law APC.

The Mott’s ‘No Sugar Added’ Class Action Lawsuit is Rahman v. Mott’s LLP, Case No. 3:13-cv-03482, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.