purchases of EZ Seed.” (Weir Decl., Doc. #80). This model rests on the assumption that plaintiffs received no benefit whatsoever from purchasing EZ Seed. See, e.g., Brazil v. Dole Packaged Foods, LLC, 2014 WL 2466559, at *15 (noting a full refund model is based on the assumption that consumers received no benefit from the product). This model matches plaintiffs’ first theory of liability—that EZ Seed does not grow grass, and is thus valueless. If plaintiffs prove EZ Seed suffered from a defect that rendered the product completely ineffective, plaintiffs would be entitled to all of their money back. The full compensatory damages model satisfies Comcast because it measures damages properly if EZ Seed is valueless. See, e.g., Allen v. Hyland’s Inc., 300 F.R.D. 643, 671 (C.D.Cal.2014) (<HOLDING>); Ortega v. Natural Balance, Inc., 300 F.R.D.
holding that defensive theory must be submitted to jury when theory is raised by evidence from any source holding summary judgment appropriate when the facts in evidence supported another plausible theory not the plaintiffs theory of the case holding that plaintiffs are ordinarily entitled to instructions consonant with their theory of the case where evidentiary support for the theory exists holding full restitution theory satisfies comcast when plaintiffs theory of liability is that the products are entirely ineffective holding that the plaintiffs misconceived legal theory did not preclude it from obtaining relief under another theory