Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 17 DECEMBER 2024

Ninth Circuit Addresses Damages Models In Lytle v. Nutramax Labs., Inc. Decision

Sheppard
Sheppard
Contributor
Sheppard

Sheppard

Businesses turn to Sheppard to deliver sophisticated counsel to help clients move ahead. With more...

View firm profile
Explore more from Sheppard

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:

United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

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.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from