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
Unfair Competition

Stacie Somers, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Beiersdorf Inc.

Published: Jul. 10, 2020 | Result Date: Apr. 15, 2020 |

Case number: 3:14-cv-02241-LAB-AGS Summary Judgment –  Defense

Judge

Larry A. Burns

Court

USDC Southern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Patricia N. Syverson
(Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint PC)

Manfred P. Muecke
(Manfred APC)

Nada Djordjevic
(Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint PC)

Elaine A. Ryan
(Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint PC)

Carrie A. Laliberte
(Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint PC)


Defendant

Alycia A. Degen
(Sidley Austin LLP)

Nisha Chandran
(Sidley Austin LLP)

Kara L. McCall
(Sidley Austin LLP)

Elizabeth M. Chiarello
(Sidley Austin LLP)


Facts

Stacy Stomer was a consumer of Beiersdorf Inc.'s Nivea CoQ10 Lotion and purchased a twin pack from Amazon.com. The lotion bottles bore advertisements claiming to firm, tighten, and hydrate the skin. Stacy eventually filed a class action lawsuit as a representative to contest the lotion's fitness for sale without FDA approval.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that the lotion classified as a drug because its labeling suggests the lotion is intended to affect the structure of the body and thus required FDA approval for sale.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied the contentions and contended that plaintiff's claims were preempted by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Assuming that the claim was not preemted, defendant alternatively contended that the claims failed as a matter of law because the lotion was intended to be used as a cosmetic product under the UCL, not a drug requiring FDA approval.

Result

The court held that the claim was preempted and granted defendant's motion for summary judgment.


#134810

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

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