This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Consumer Law
Consumers Legal Remedies Act
Breach of Express Warranty

James Kroessler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CVS Health Corporation

Published: Jul. 5, 2019 | Result Date: May 16, 2019 | Filing Date: Feb. 7, 2019 |

Case number: 3:19-cv-00277-CAB-JLB Bench Decision –  Defense

Judge

Cathy A. Bencivengo

Court

USDC Southern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Timothy G. Blood
(Blood, Hurst & O'Reardon LLP)

Thomas J. O'Reardon II
(Blood, Hurst & O'Reardon LLP)

Craig W. Straub
(Blood, Hurst & O'Reardon LLP)

Todd D. Carpenter
(Lynch Carpenter LLP)


Defendant

Amy P. Lally
(Sidley Austin LLP)

Adriane K. Peralta
(Sidley Austin LLP)


Facts

Plaintiff James Kroessler filed a class action against CVS Health Corp. in relation to defendant's glucosamine joint health products.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that defendant marketed, sold, and distributed a line of CVS Health Glucosamine Products. Plaintiff alleged that defendant represented through its products labeling, packaging and other advertising, that the products provide joint health to assist with joint pain, flexibility and mobility. Plaintiff contended that these statements were designed to induce consumers to believe that defendant's products provided meaningful joint health benefits. However, plaintiff argued, the products did not support or benefit the health of human joints because glucosamine, the primary ingredient, is not effective at supporting or benefiting joint health.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant contended that plaintiff's claims were preempted by the federal law and that he lacked standing to pursue any injunctive relief. Additionally, defendant alleged that plaintiff only purchased one of the six products identified in his suit and couldn't bring any claims regarding the products he did not use.

Result

The court found for the defendant and dismissed the case with prejudice.


#132175

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390