HOLDINGS: -Luman did not require court to revisit its finding that three plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged facts to show standing to seek injunctive relief; -Plaintiffs had not alleged facts about defendant’s advertising campaign to show that in terms of breadth, content, and pervasiveness it would be appropriate to apply Tobacco II; -Two plaintiffs based their Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) claim, in part, on purchases of plush whales. They did not state a claim since they did not allege any misrepresentations that related to uses, benefits, nature, or qualities of the whales; -Allegations were sufficient to allege that defendant represented that its entertainment services had characteristics it did not have; -Because no plaintiff had asserted a request for restitution under CLRA, the court denied, without prejudice, the motion to dismiss a CLRA claim on this basis. Parties’ litigation attorneys San Diego appeal.
The court granted, in part, and denied, in part, defendant’s motion to dismiss.
HOLDINGS: -In plaintiffs’ purported class action against defendant medical device manufacturer and seller, plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the denial of their class certification was denied because plaintiffs failed to satisfy their burden to demonstrate predominance under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) as to the learned intermediary doctrine, because their new alternative theory that the doctrine did not apply to user operated medical device design defect cases was unsupported and unpersuasive, as to their full refund model theory of damages, and as to the statute of limitations, where an analysis of equitable tolling and the discovery rule would necessarily involve consideration of whether individual plaintiffs acted with reasonable diligence.
Motion for reconsideration was denied.