Pfizer v. Sup. Ct., B188106
In plaintiffs' action against Pfizer, the manufacturer of Listerine mouthwash, pursuant to the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and False Advertising Law, claiming that Pfizer marketed the mouthwash in a misleading manner by representing that the use of it can replace the use of dental floss in reducing plaque and gingivitis, defendant's petition for writ of mandate seeking to overturn superior court's order certifying the class action is granted as the ruling certifying a class consisting of all persons who purchased Listerine in California during a six-month period is overbroad, and In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (2009), does not require a different disposition in this case.
- Decided 03/02/2010
- Published 03/02/2010
- California Court of Appeal
- For Appellant:
- Kaye Scholer, Thomas A. Smart, Richard A. De Sevo and Jeffrey S. Gordon for Petitioner., Shook, Hardy & Bacon, Natasha Mosley, Victor E. Schwartz, Cary Silverman; Erika Cuneo Frank; and Robin S. Conrad for Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and the California Chamber of Commerce as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioner., Westrup Klick, R. Duane Westrup, Christine C. Choi; Allan A. Sigel for Real Party in Interest., Schubert Jonckheer Kolbe & Kralowec, Kimberly A. Kralowec; Arbogast & Berns and David M. Arbogast for Consumer Attorneys of California as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest.
- For Appellees:
- No appearance for Respondent.