A California federal court has denied a class certification and consolidation request in a lawsuit alleging Pharmacare US, Inc.’s IntenseX Sexual Power & Performance® failed to provide the promised benefits. Sandoval v. Pharmacare US, Inc., No. 15-0738 (S.D. Cal., order entered June 10, 2016). The plaintiffs alleged violations of a variety of California statutes, including the Unfair Competition Law, Business & Professions Code, False Advertising Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The complaint also alleged breach of express warranty and implied warranty of merchantability as well as a violation of the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
While the court found the plaintiff’s allegations sufficient to support ascertainability and numerosity under Rule 23, it determined that he failed to demonstrate commonality and predominance. The court further refused to reform the class definitions to allow the plaintiffs to establish coextensive and typical claims consistent with those of the putative classes. Based on these deficiencies, the court refused to “address the issue of Plaintiffs’ adequacy as class representatives” and determined that a nationwide class was not appropriate because they could not make the requisite showing under California’s Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co., 666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012).