Follow us on Twitter and Facebook for the latest Class Action Settlement News!
Hyland’s Homeopathy Class Action Lawsuit Moves Forward
By Kimberly Mirando
A class action lawsuit against Hyland’s Inc. and Standard Homeopathy alleging deceptive advertising of their homeopathic products continues to move forward, despite continued legal wrangling.
Plaintiffs Kim Allen and Daniele Xenos allege in the Hyland’s homeopathy class action lawsuit that the Defendants advertise their homeopathic products as possessing certain benefits despite knowing that their products contain no active ingredients in sufficient quantities that could deliver those benefits. They further allege that they relied on the Defendants’ marketing claims in purchasing the products. As a result, they are seeking damages and an order enjoining the Defendants from continuing to make such marketing claims.
On March 7, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed an amended class action lawsuit against Hyland’s and Standard Homeopathy claiming: (1) violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, (2) violation of the Unfair Competition Law, (3) violation of the False Advertising Law, (4) breach of express warranty, (5) breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and (6) money had and received, money paid and unjust enrichment.
Hyland’s and Standard Homeopathy moved to dismiss the class action lawsuit, but were only successful in having the claim of unjust enrichment dismissed. The Court also granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss allegations regarding products other than the seven the Plaintiffs actually purchased: Hyland’s Calm Forte, Hyland’s Teething Relief, Hyland’s Migraine Headache Relief, Hyland’s ClearAc, Hyland’s Poison Ivy/Oak Tablets, Hyland’s Colic Tablets and Hyland’s Leg Cramps with Quinine PM.
The Court also denied a motion to consolidate the class action lawsuit with another case, Forcellati v. Hyland’s, Inc., because there is no current overlap between the products at issue in the two suits, and because Forcellati raises claims under federal law and New Jersey law “that are not at issue here.”
The Court also noted in its decision to dismiss the consolidation request that both the Plaintiffs and the Defendants in Allen v. Hyland’s oppose consolidation, saying “Consolidation is thus likely to waste just as much time as it saves because counsel for the two sets of Plaintiffs will need to reach a consensus on litigation decisions.”
The Plaintiffs in Allen v. Hyland’s have until May 17th to file an amended complaint addressing the dismissed claims.
The case is Kim Allen v. Hyland’s, Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-01150-DMG-MAN, U.S. District Court, Central District of California.
Updated May 7th, 2012
All class action and lawsuit news updates are listed in the Lawsuit News section of Top Class Actions
©2008 – 2012 Top Class Actions® LLC
Various Trademarks held by their respective owners.
View all: Class Action Lawsuit and Settlement News