## Facts

- Enzo Forcellati, a New Jersey consumer, bought Hyland’s homeopathic children’s cold/flu remedies marketed as “fast acting” and “safe & effective.”
- He alleged the products’ active ingredients were so diluted that the remedies were effectively “flavored water” and could not work as represented.
- He claimed the labeling and advertising misled reasonable consumers into believing the products would provide symptom relief.
- He alleged reliance on the representations and payment of a price premium for products that did not provide the promised benefits.
- He sued Hyland’s, Inc. and related entities on behalf of himself and a putative nationwide class, asserting California statutory consumer claims, warranty claims, unjust enrichment, and related theories (including a Magnuson-Moss theory tied to warranties).
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), challenging (among other things) the out-of-state plaintiff’s ability to invoke California statutes, the nationwide class allegations, claims about unpurchased products, warranty pleading, and unjust enrichment.

## Issues

1. Whether an out-of-state purchaser may plead claims under California’s UCL, FAL, and CLRA when the alleged deceptive marketing conduct originated from defendants’ California headquarters.
2. Whether nationwide class allegations under California law should be dismissed at the pleading stage based on anticipated choice-of-law conflicts.
3. Whether plaintiff lacked standing to assert claims concerning similar products in the same product line that he did not personally purchase.
4. Whether allegations of “inherent ineffectiveness” adequately state claims for breach of express and implied warranties (and related Magnuson-Moss relief).
5. Whether “unjust enrichment” is a standalone cause of action under California law.

## Decision

- The motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part.
- The court allowed the California consumer-protection claims to proceed despite plaintiff’s New Jersey residency because the alleged deceptive conduct emanated from California.
- The court declined to dismiss the nationwide class allegations at the pleading stage, treating choice-of-law objections as premature and more suitable for class certification.
- The court permitted claims addressing unpurchased but substantially similar products to proceed, viewing defendants’ objections as better addressed under Rule 23 rather than as an Article III standing bar at this stage.
- The court held the express and implied warranty allegations were sufficient where plaintiff alleged the products were inherently ineffective for anyone, not merely ineffective for him.
- The unjust enrichment claim was dismissed with prejudice because California does not recognize unjust enrichment as an independent cause of action.

## Legal Principles

- California consumer-protection statutes may be invoked at the pleading stage by a non-California plaintiff when the alleged wrongful conduct has a substantial connection to California, including originating from a California-based defendant’s marketing and policy decisions.
- Choice-of-law challenges to a proposed nationwide class are often not resolved on a motion to dismiss and may be deferred until class certification on a fuller record.
- When unpurchased products are alleged to be substantially similar and marketed using the same challenged representations, disputes about inclusion commonly go to Rule 23 typicality/adequacy rather than defeating standing at the pleading stage.
- Warranty claims may be adequately pled by alleging an objective product defect—here, that the product cannot work as promised—supporting both express warranty (contradicting affirmations of efficacy) and implied warranty (unfitness for intended use).
- Under California law, unjust enrichment is not a standalone substantive claim; when pled as an independent count, it is subject to dismissal, including with prejudice where amendment cannot cure the doctrinal defect.

## Conclusion

The court permitted the core consumer-fraud and warranty theories challenging alleged efficacy misrepresentations about homeopathic children’s cold/flu products to proceed, while rejecting unjust enrichment as an independent California claim and deferring nationwide class and related choice-of-law disputes to later class-certification proceedings.


Forcellati v. Hyland’s, Inc., 876 F. Supp. 2d 1155 (C.D. Cal. 2012)