9th Circuit Overturns Cert. in Supple False Ad Class Action Lawsuit

On June 23, Class certification for a Supple nutrition drink class action lawsuit was overturned by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled the proposed Class was too far reaching and included buyers who had not seen the ads relevant to this case. The Supple class action lawsuit alleges Supple LLC falsely advertised their brand name nutrition drink as an effective joint pain treatment.

This decision by the 9th Circuit overturned a previous ruling made by U.S. District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald back in February 2013. At this time, Judge Fitzgerald granted plaintiff Arleen Cabral Class certification for her Supple nutrition drink class action lawsuit that would include all California residents who bought the Supple drink since December 2007.

According to the 9th Circuit’s ruling, the lower court had wrongly certified a Supple Class of all buyers when the central issue of this nutrition drink class action lawsuit is whether or not Supple enticed consumers to buy their product by claiming it is “clinically proven effective in treating joint pain.”

The 9th Circuit states: “The district court declared that the common issue which predominated was whether Supple had misrepresented to the class members that ‘Beverage is clinically proven effective in treating joint pain.’ But in order for the issue to predominate, it must at least be common and there must be cohesion among the class members. It is upon those rocks that the district court’s certification founders.”

Cabral originally filed her Supple nutrition drink class action lawsuit in California state court back in December 2011, though Supple removed the case to federal court just a month later. After some litigation, the company was able to get this Supple class action lawsuit dismissed in 2012; however, the plaintiff was allowed revise her nutrition drink class action lawsuit, and in an amended complaint, Cabral clearly alleged that she purchased the brand name nutrition drink based on the company’s claim that its “key ingredients are ‘clinically proven’ effective to treat the pain and immobility associated with arthritis.”

“Defendants have wrongfully induced thousands of California consumers into shelling out a whopping $94.95 (plus processing and handling) for Supple, which is nothing more than a fruit flavored juice, incapable of healing or comforting arthritis pain,” Cabral alleges in her Supple class action lawsuit.

The court granted the plaintiff her proposed Class in 2013, finding that Class Members would have been exposed to Supple’s false advertising and claims through various means including Supple’s website and infomercials before these individuals decided to buy the drink. Judge Fitzgerald therefore ruled that to presume that consumers relied on Supple’s alleged false advertising and claims for their nutrition drinks warranted Class certification.

However, the 9th Circuit disagreed with Judge Fitzgerald’s ruling, finding that the facts presented in this Supple Nutrition drink class action lawsuit did not support the claim that all potential Class Members had been exposed to the company’s advertisements with the joint pain treatment claims. This Supple nutrition drink class action lawsuit has been remanded to district court; whether or not a new Class will be certified has yet to be determined.

Cabral is represented by Deepak Gupta of Gupta Beck PLLC and Gillian Leigh Wade of Milstein Adelman & Kreger LLP

The Supple Nutrition Drink Class Action Lawsuit is Arleen Cabral, et al. v. Supple LLC, Case No. 13-55943, in the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals.