Monetary Class Certification Denied in Hain Celestial “Natural” Lawsuit
A California federal court has denied class certification in a lawsuit
consolidated from four separate actions alleging that Hain Celestial
Seasonings Teas were produced from ingredients sprayed with pesticides
and contained pesticide residue, thus allegedly precluding Hain from
labeling its teas as “natural.” In re Hain Celestial Seasonings Prods.
Consumer Litig., No. 13-1757 (C.D. Cal., order entered September 23,
2015). In its answer to the complaint, Hain argued the plaintiffs conflated
the definitions of “natural” and “organic” in their arguments, noting that
under the plaintiffs’ standards, even an apple picked directly from a tree
would not be “natural” had pesticides been applied during its growth.
The court first chastised the plaintiffs for erroneous references and
poorly timed supplemental filings. “Despite 18 months passing between
the filing of this lawsuit and the filing of the Certification Motion, Plaintiffs
effectively left the Court to drink from a fire hose, perhaps filled with
tea, during the hearing,” the court wrote. “In some ways the Court still
felt like a pig in search of truffles.”
Turning to the substantive arguments, the court found that the plaintiffs
failed to prove the proposed class was ascertainable. “For example,
Plaintiffs’ exhibits of one tea variety at issue, the Authentic Green Tea,
and one variety not at issue, the Antioxidant Green Tea, only strengthens
the conclusion that there is no administratively feasible way to determine
class members,” the court said. “These two boxes are nearly identical.
They both say “Natural Antioxidant Green Tea” in the upper left corner
despite one of them being antioxidant and one being authentic. Plaintiffs
essentially argue that the existence of a dragon instead of an elephant
signals to potential class members which tea they purchased. The Court
does not agree. The animals appear fungible. They are not tied to the
essence of the tea, like a monkey to a banana or a rabbit to a carrot.”
Accordingly, the court concluded the class could not be ascertained
for monetary purposes and refused to grant certification, but allowed
certification for injunctive relief.
Issue 580
