In Lytle v. Nutramax Laboratories, Inc., 114 F.4th 1011
(9th Cir.), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed two key
issues arising in motions for class certification: (1) whether
plaintiffs' proposed unexecuted damages model is sufficient at
the class certification stage; and (2) whether plaintiffs
adequately demonstrated reliance was provable by common
evidence.
Plaintiffs Justin Lytle and Christine Musthaler
("Plaintiffs") alleged Nutramax Laboratories of violating
the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") by
marketing Cosequin, a pet health product, with misleading claims
about its benefits for dogs' joint health. The district court
certified a class of California purchasers exposed to the following
four statements that appeared on Cosequin's packaging:
Lytle, 114 F.4th 1011, 1020.