Kenny Dorsey v. Rockhard Laboratories LLC et al
Filing
40
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS 36 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: As Plaintiff has already amended his complaint twice, and as the Court finds that it would generally be futile to allow Plaintiff to attempt to amend the identified deficiencies, the dismissal of some portions of Plaintiffs claims shall be WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. (lc). Modified on 9/19/2014. (lc).
1
2
O
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
KENNY DORSEY, individually
and on behalf of all others
similarly situated and the
general public,
13
Plaintiff,
14
v.
15
16
17
18
19
ROCKHARD LABORATORIES, LLC,
a Georgia limited liability
company; and ROCKHARD
LABORATORIES HOLDINGS LLC,a
Georgia limited liability
company,
Defendants.
___________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CV 13-07557 DDP (RZx)
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS
[DKT. NO. 36]
20
21
Presently before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss
22
Plaintiff’s class-action complaint (the “Motion”). (Docket No. 36.)
23
For the reasons stated in this order, the Motion is GRANTED IN PART
24
and DENIED IN PART.
25
I. Background
26
Plaintiff Kenny Dorsey (“Plaintiff”) brings this action on
27
behalf of himself and a putative class of consumers who purchased
28
products marketed and sold by Defendants Rockhard Laboratories, LLC
1
and Rockhard Laboratories Holdings, LLC (collectively,
2
“Defendants”).1 (Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), Docket No. 32, ¶
3
1.) Defendants manufacture, advertise, distribute, and sell a
4
product known as Rockhard Weekend (“RHW”), a male sexual
5
enhancement product. (Id. ¶¶ 16-17.) Plaintiff alleges that
6
Defendants advertise and promote RHW primarily through uniform
7
labeling on the front of the product’s packaging, which purports to
8
represent the benefits of taking the product. (Id. ¶ 17.)
9
The exact chemical formulation and the packaging of RHW have
10
changed several times over the years, but Plaintiff alleges that
11
the product name, the product’s purported use, and overall message
12
of Defendants’ advertising with regard to the product have remained
13
the same. (Id. ¶¶ 19, 29.) RHW is available in multiple packaging
14
arrangements, including a one-capsule blister pack retailing for
15
around $5, a three-capsule bottle retailing for around $15, and an
16
eight-capsule bottle retailing for around $30. (Id. ¶¶ 20, 28; Exh.
17
A.) Defendants’ packaging involves, or has involved, statements
18
that represent RHW as a “sexual performance enhancer for men” or
19
“the 72-hour sexual performance pill for men.” (Id. ¶ 22.) The
20
packaging also claims that RHW is “Doctor Tested,” “Doctor
21
Approved,” “Fast & Effective,” and provides “Rockhard Results.”
22
(Id.) Defendants also advertise RHW as “All Natural,” even though,
23
Plaintiff alleges, some of the ingredients of RHW are “synthetic,
24
25
26
27
28
1
Two other defendants were named in Plaintiff’s SAC but have
already been dismissed pursuant to stipulation of the parties.
(Docket No. 34.) Therefore, the Court does not include the
dismissed defendants, John R. Miklos and Joshua Maurice, in its
discussion of the issues raised in the Motion.
2
1
chemically reduced and/or have carcinogenic properties.” (Id. ¶
2
23.)
3
From April 2011 to June 2011, Plaintiff purchased RHW from B&B
4
Liquor on Western Avenue in Los Angeles for approximately $30 per
5
bottle.2 (Id. ¶ 25.) Plaintiff alleges that when he purchased RHW,
6
he relied upon the various representations made on the labeling.
7
(Id. ¶ 26.) Plaintiff alleges that the advertising claims amount to
8
“explicit claims that RockHard Weekend would enhance Plaintiff’s
9
sexual performance.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that he would not have
10
purchased RHW without these advertising claims. (Id.) Plaintiff
11
alleges that he “used RHW pursuant to the instructions on its
12
respective packaging but RHW was not as advertised.” (Id. ¶ 27.)
13
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ advertising is false and
14
misleading because none of the ingredients in any iteration of RHW
15
has the effect of enhancing male sexual performance. (Id. ¶¶ 30,
16
31.) Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants’ labeling on RHW is
17
unlawful because it is a “new drug” unapproved by the FDA to make
18
claims that it is an aphrodisiac. (Id. ¶¶ 43-48.) Plaintiff brings
19
the following six claims: (1) violation of California Consumers
20
Legal Remedies Act; (2) violation of California unfair competition
21
law; (3) false advertising; (4) breach of express warranty; (5)
22
breach of implied warranty of merchantability; and (6) violation of
23
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. (Id. ¶¶ 113-163.) Defendants now
24
move to dismiss the SAC on multiple grounds. (Docket No. 36.)
25
II. Legal Standard
26
27
28
2
It is unclear from the SAC the number of occasions on which
Plaintiff purchased RHW, the packaging format that he purchased,
and the iteration/formula of the product that he purchased.
3
1
A complaint will survive a motion to dismiss when it contains
2
“sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to
3
relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
4
662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
5
570 (2007)). When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court must
6
“accept as true all allegations of material fact and must construe
7
those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Resnick
8
v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). Although a complaint
9
need not include “detailed factual allegations,” it must offer
10
“more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
11
accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Conclusory allegations or
12
allegations that are no more than a statement of a legal conclusion
13
“are not entitled to the assumption of truth.” Id. at 679. In other
14
words, a pleading that merely offers “labels and conclusions,” a
15
“formulaic recitation of the elements,” or “naked assertions” will
16
not be sufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be
17
granted. Id. at 678 (citations and internal quotation marks
18
omitted).
19
“When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court
20
should assume their veracity and then determine whether they
21
plausibly give rise to an entitlement of relief.” Id. at 679.
22
Plaintiffs must allege “plausible grounds to infer” that their
23
claims rise “above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at
24
555. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for
25
relief” is a “context-specific task that requires the reviewing
26
court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Iqbal,
27
556 U.S. at 679.
28
///
4
1
2
3
4
III. Discussion
A. Threshold Issues
1. Reliance and Injury
Defendants argue that Plaintiff does not have standing to
5
bring this action and/or that Plaintiff’s pleadings are
6
insufficient under Rule 12(b)(6) because Plaintiff has not alleged
7
facts establishing either his reliance on the alleged
8
misrepresentations or an injury in fact.
9
With regard to the issue of reliance, Defendants argue that
10
Plaintiff has not pleaded with specificity which exact iteration of
11
RHW he purchased. Defendants argue that without that information,
12
Plaintiff fails to establish reliance on any particular
13
misrepresentation, as the product packaging changed over time.
14
While it is true that Plaintiff does not allege exactly which
15
iteration of RHW he purchased, it is clear from looking at the
16
packaging of various iterations of the product that the same
17
messages were conveyed to all potential purchasers of RHW. (See SAC
18
Exh. A.) Plaintiff alleges that he read the statements on the
19
packaging and relied on those statements in deciding to purchase
20
the product. With a consumer product such as RHW, which is designed
21
to be used on a single occasion or a limited number of occasions,
22
it is unsurprising that Plaintiff no longer has the packaging of
23
the product he purchased. Further, due to the similar nature of the
24
various packaging iterations, it is also unsurprising that
25
Plaintiff is unable to differentiate between the different versions
26
of RHW. The Court, therefore, finds that Plaintiff’s allegations
27
are sufficient to show Plaintiff’s reliance on the packaging
28
statements.
5
1
Defendants also allege that Plaintiff has not provided
2
sufficient specificity regarding how or why RHW did not perform as
3
advertised. It is true that Plaintiff’s allegations could be more
4
specific in this regard. However, Plaintiff alleges that “[n]one of
5
the ingredients in any iteration of RHW ... will enhance male
6
sexual performance.” (SAC ¶ 31.) This statement, even without
7
specifics regarding what happened when Plaintiff took RHW,
8
demonstrates an injury in fact: the product contains no ingredient
9
that has the effect that the packaging represents the product to
10
have. In addition, Plaintiff alleges that he would not have
11
purchased RHW but for the alleged misrepresentations. See Hinojos
12
v. Kohl’s Corp., 718 F.3d 1098, 1105 (9th Cir. 2013). This
13
statement is highly plausible; unlike a food product, which may
14
offer multiple benefits (such as nutrition, flavor, satiety, etc),
15
there is likely only one reason an individual purchases a product
16
that purports to enhance male sexual performance: to enhance male
17
sexual performance. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has
18
pleaded sufficient facts to demonstrate his reliance on the
19
representations on RHW packaging and an injury in fact.
20
2. RHW Iterations Plaintiff Did Not Purchase
21
Defendants also argue that Plaintiff lacks standing to
22
represent a putative class that includes individuals who purchased
23
iterations of RHW different from the version that Plaintiff
24
purchased. Plaintiff responds that it is inappropriate for the
25
Court to make such a determination at this stage and that the issue
26
is more appropriately decided as part of the typicality and
27
adequacy prongs of a class certification motion under Rule 23.
28
Plaintiff also argues that, should the Court decide the issue now,
6
1
there is sufficient similarity between the different iterations of
2
RHW’s formula and packaging to allow Plaintiff to have standing to
3
represent all individuals who purchased any iteration of the
4
product.
5
There are court decisions going both ways on this issue, with
6
some finding that a plaintiff has no standing to pursue claims
7
based on products he or she did not purchase. See, e.g., Granfield
8
v. NVIDIA Corp., 2012 WL 2847575, at *6 (N.D. Cal. 2012). However,
9
“[t]he majority of the courts that have carefully analyzed the
10
question hold that a plaintiff may have standing to assert claims
11
for unnamed class members based on products he or she did not
12
purchase so long as the products and alleged misrepresentations are
13
substantially similar.” Miller v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co., 912
14
F.Supp.2d 861, 869 (N.D. Cal. 2012). Further, some courts have held
15
that “the issue of whether a class representative may be allowed to
16
present claims on behalf of other who have similar, but not
17
identical, interests depends not on standing, but on an assessment
18
of typicality and adequacy of representation” at the class
19
certification stage. Bruno v. Quten Research Inst., LLC, 280 F.R.D.
20
524, 530 (C.D. Cal. 2011).
21
The Court will revisit this issue at the class certification
22
stage in determining whether a class can be certified and, if so,
23
the contours of that class.3 However, it appears that Plaintiff’s
24
claims are sufficiently similar to those of putative class members
25
who purchased a different iteration of the RHW product to
26
potentially allow him to represent them in this class action. See
27
3
28
Additional clarity on the class definition will be needed at
the class certification stage.
7
1
Astiana v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc., 2012 WL 2990766, at *13
2
(N.D. Cal. 2012) (“Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient similarity
3
between the products they did purchase and those that they did not;
4
any concerns of [defendant] and/or the Court about material
5
differences are better addressed at the class certification stage
6
rather than at the 12(b)(6) stage.”). In looking at the various
7
versions of the packaging attached to Plaintiff’s SAC, it appears
8
that very similar phrasing was used on every version of RHW and
9
that the marketing scheme for RHW remained consistent even as the
10
formula and packaging underwent some changes. See id. (“Plaintiffs
11
are challenging the same kind of food products (i.e., ice cream) as
12
well as the same labels for all of the products.... That the
13
different ice creams may ultimately have different ingredients is
14
not dispositive as Plaintiffs are challenging the same basic
15
mislabeling practice across different product flavors.”). Further,
16
the name of the product, Rockhard Weekend, never changed. The Court
17
therefore finds that there are sufficient similarities between the
18
RHW product that Plaintiff purchased and other iterations of the
19
formula and packaging of RHW to survive the Motion.
20
B. Plaintiff’s Fraud-Based Claims (UCL, FAL, and CLRA)
21
Plaintiff’s causes of action can be separated into two
22
categories: claims sounding in fraud (UCL, CLRA, false advertising)
23
and warranty-based claims. As to Plaintiff’s fraud-based claims,
24
Defendants present multiple arguments as to why these claims are
25
insufficiently pleaded in the SAC. Defendants argue (1) Plaintiff
26
has not pleaded facts with the specificity required by Rule 9(b);
27
(2) some of the statements made on the packaging are mere puffery
28
and therefore not actionable; (3) the “All Natural” label is not
8
1
actionable; (4) the “Doctor Tested, Doctor Approved” statement is a
2
non-actionable lack of substantiation claim; (5) Defendants have
3
not engaged in any “unfair” conduct under the UCL; and (6)
4
Plaintiff’s UCL claim should be dismissed to the extent it raises
5
violations of FDCA regulations.
6
7
1. Rule 9(b)
Rule 9(b) requires that “[i]n alleging fraud or mistake, a
8
party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting
9
fraud or mistake.” The rule requires that “[a]verments of fraud ...
10
be accompanied by ‘the who, what, when, where, and how’ of the
11
misconduct charged.” Vess v. Ciba-Giegy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097,
12
1106 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Cooper v. Pickett, 137 F.3d 616, 627
13
(9th Cir. 1997)). Further, “Rule 9(b) does not allow a complaint to
14
merely lump multiple defendants together but requires plaintiffs to
15
differentiate their allegations when suing more than one defendant
16
... and inform each defendant separately of the allegations
17
surrounding his alleged participation in the fraud.” Swartz v. KPMG
18
LLP, 476 F.3d 756, 764-65 (9th Cir. 2007). Defendants argue that
19
Plaintiff’s allegations do not involve sufficient specificity to
20
meet the requirements of Rule 9(b) and that Plaintiff fails to
21
differentiate between Defendants in his allegations.
22
The Court finds that Plaintiff has met his pleading
23
requirement with regards to the alleged misrepresentations at issue
24
here. As to the various representations indicating that RHW is a
25
male sexual performance enhancer, Plaintiff specifically pleads the
26
language of the various representations and includes Exhibit A to
27
his SAC, which shows the statements in context on the packaging.
28
(See SAC ¶ 26; Exh. A.) Therefore, Plaintiff has sufficiently
9
1
alleged what the false statements were. He specifically alleges
2
when and where he purchased RHW. Plaintiff then alleges that
3
“Defendants ... mislead consumers to believe that RHW will enhance
4
‘sexual performance’ of the human male,” but that “[n]one of the
5
ingredients in any iteration of RHW ... will enhance male sexual
6
performance.” (Id. ¶¶ 30, 31.) Plaintiff includes further, specific
7
allegations regarding the falsity of the statements “Fast &
8
Effective” and “RockHard Results.” (Id. ¶¶ 37, 38.) These
9
allegations specify exactly how Plaintiff alleges that the
10
representations made on the packaging are false, including what
11
consumers would understand the statements to mean and how that
12
understanding is misleading. See Peviani v. Natural Balance, Inc.,
13
774 F.Supp.2d 1066, 1070-72 (S.D. Cal. 2011) (finding sufficient
14
specificity for UCL claims based on similar allegations).
15
Plaintiff includes similar allegations as to the specific
16
claims that RHW is “All Natural” and “Doctor Tested, Doctor
17
Approved.” Plaintiff alleges that “a reasonable consumer would
18
expect an ‘all-natural’ product to contain ingredients found in
19
nature, derived from natural sources, absent of manmade processes,
20
and which are wholesome and safe.” (Id. ¶ 35.) Plaintiff then
21
includes specific allegations regarding various chemicals allegedly
22
contained in iterations of RHW that do not meet this expectation.
23
(Id.) Further, Plaintiff alleges that “a reasonable consumer is
24
likely to believe,” based on the “Doctor Tested, Doctor Approved”
25
label, that RHW “is used, endorsed, or recommended by doctors
26
practicing medicine in clinical settings.” (Id. ¶ 39.)
27
28
Defendants also argue that Plaintiff has failed to
differentiate between Defendants in making his factual allegations.
10
1
However, the individual defendants originally named in the SAC have
2
been dismissed; the only two Defendants that remain are two
3
corporate entities involved in the manufacture, sale, and
4
advertising of RHW. The Court does not find Plaintiff’s SAC
5
deficient merely because he has not differentiated between the two
6
related corporate entities at this stage.
7
8
9
2. Puffery
Defendants next contend that many of the representations
contained on RHW packaging are mere puffery, which no reasonable
10
consumer would understand to be a guarantee regarding the product.
11
Puffery is “exaggerated advertising, blustering, and boasting upon
12
which no reasonable buyer would rely.” Southland Sod Farms v.
13
Stover Seed Co., 108 F.3d 1134, 1145 (9th Cir. 1997). “The
14
distinguishing characteristics of puffery are vague, highly
15
subjective claims as opposed to specific, detailed factual
16
allegations.” Haskell v. Time, Inc., 857 F.Supp. 1392, 1399 (E.D.
17
Cal. 1994); see also Cook, Perkiss and Liehe, Inc. v. Northern
18
California Collection Service Inc., 911 F.2d 242, 246 (9th Cir.
19
1990). The Court must consider the packaging as a whole in
20
evaluating whether the advertisement can be read as implying
21
specific facts about the product. See id. at 245.
22
Defendants argue that the statements “Sexual Performance
23
Enhancer for Men,” “Fast & Effective,” “Rockhard Results,” and
24
other, similar statements contained on various iterations of RHW
25
packaging are mere puffery and therefore are not actionable.
26
Defendants contend that these statements are “vague, highly
27
subjective claims as opposed to detailed factual assertions.”
28
(Motion, Docket No. 36, p.11.) However, the Court finds that the
11
1
statements, taken as a whole and in context, do not constitute
2
puffery, but rather make specific claims regarding the benefits of
3
taking RHW. These statements create the impression that, by taking
4
the product, a consumer will have enhanced sexual performance, that
5
the effect will happen quickly, and that the consumer can expect to
6
have a “Rockhard” erection. See Peviani v. Natural Balance, 774
7
F.Supp.2d 1066, 1072 (S.D. Cal. 2011) (declining to dismiss as
8
puffery false advertising claims where the name “Cobra Sexual
9
Energy,” the statement “aphrodisiac plants to enhance sexual
10
energy,” and other statements were on packaging of sexual
11
enhancement product); American Home Products Corp. v. F.T.C., 695
12
F.2d 681, 687 (2d Cir. 1982) (“The impression created by the
13
advertising, not its literal truth or falsity, is the
14
desideratum.”). Therefore, the Court does not dismiss on the basis
15
that the statements are mere puffery.
16
3. “All Natural”
17
Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s claim that the “All Natural”
18
label on RHW is misleading must be dismissed because a reasonable
19
consumer would not be deceived by that statement. Defendants cite
20
Pelayo v. Nestle USA, 2013 WL 5764644 (C.D. Cal. 2013) for the
21
proposition that the phrase “all natural” “cannot be considered to
22
be deceptive to a consumer acting reasonably under the
23
circumstances.” (Motion, Docket No. 36, p.13.) Defendants appears
24
to conclude, therefore, that representations that a product is “all
25
natural” are never actionable. Defendants also cite multiple
26
district court cases that conclude, under the particular
27
circumstances of the case, that no reasonable consumer could be
28
deceived by the “all natural” or similar representation where there
12
1
was contradictory information contained on the label. See, e.g.,
2
Rooney v. Cumberland Packing Corp., 2012 WL 1512106 (S.D. Cal.
3
2012); Morgan v. Wallaby Yogurt Co., Inc., 2013 WL 5514563 (N.D.
4
Cal. 2013).
5
The Ninth Circuit appears to have rejected the simplistic
6
approach to representations that a product is “all natural”
7
suggested by Defendants’ interpretation of Pelayo. Williams v.
8
Gerber Products Co., 552 F.3d 934, 938-40 (9th Cir. 2008). In
9
Williams, the Ninth Circuit “disagree[d] with the district court
10
that reasonable consumers should be expected to look beyond
11
misleading representations on the front of the box to discover the
12
truth from the ingredient list in small print on the side of the
13
box.” Id. at 939. “[R]easonable consumers expect that the
14
ingredient list contains more detailed information about the
15
product that confirms other representations on the packaging.” Id.
16
at 939-40 (emphasis added).
17
The cases cited by Defendants are inapposite, especially in
18
light of the controlling authority of Williams. Plaintiff has
19
alleged a plausible interpretation of what “All-Natural” would mean
20
to a reasonable consumer of RHW and indicated exactly which
21
ingredients in various iterations of RHW do not meet this
22
definition. (See SAC ¶¶ 35, 36.) Further, unlike in Defendants’
23
cases, there is no indication that any of the labeling contained
24
any information, other than that contained in small type in the
25
nutrition facts panel on the back of the packaging, that would lead
26
a reasonable consumer to question the “All-Natural” representation,
27
nor any indication that Plaintiff would have had reason to read the
28
nutrition facts or that the “All-Natural” representation was
13
1
located near or in the same typeface as the ingredients list.
2
Simply listing the actual ingredients of the product does not
3
absolve Defendants of all potential liability for making false
4
statements that contradict the ingredient list. See Williams, 552
5
F.3d at 939 (“We do not think that the FDA requires an ingredient
6
list so that manufacturers can mislead consumers and then rely on
7
the ingredient list to correct those misinterpretations and provide
8
a shield for liability for the deception.”). Therefore, the
9
underlying facts give rise to a plausible claim that the phrase
10
“All-Natural” would have been misleading to a reasonable consumer
11
under the circumstances.
12
13
4. “Doctor Tested, Doctor Approved”
Defendants argue that Plaintiff cannot bring a claim based on
14
Defendants’ label “Doctor Tested, Doctor Approved” because
15
Plaintiff is improperly trying to bring a lack of substantiation
16
claim rather than a claim that the label is actually false or
17
misleading. “Consumer claims for a lack of substantiation are not
18
cognizable under California law.” In re Clorox Consumer Litigation,
19
894 F.Supp.2d 1224, 1232 (N.D. Cal 2012). In the SAC, Plaintiff
20
alleges that “Defendants have not and cannot cite any research
21
studies or unsolicited endorsements of RHW by medical doctors, nor
22
is RHW used in clinical settings for the treatment of male
23
impotence or any other condition.” (SAC ¶ 39.)
24
The Court finds that the SAC sufficiently alleges a false
25
advertising claim rather than merely a lack of substantiation
26
claim. Plaintiff includes allegations regarding what “Doctor
27
Tested, Doctor Approved” would mean to a reasonable consumer: that
28
RHW is “used, endorsed, or recommended by doctors practicing
14
1
medicine in clinical settings.” (Id.) Plaintiff then alleges that
2
RHW is not used in any clinical setting to treat any condition,
3
thereby alleging that Defendants’ representation is false. (Id.)
4
Therefore, Plaintiff does not merely allege that Defendants have
5
not substantiated their claim, but also that the claim is false.
6
Plaintiff has satisfied his pleading burden to survive the Motion.4
7
8
5. Unfair Conduct Under the UCL
Plaintiff’s UCL allegations are more properly based on the
9
“unlawful” and “fraudulent” prongs of the UCL. All of Plaintiff’s
10
factual allegations pertain to the false and misleading nature of
11
the statement on RHW packaging. Because the Court has already found
12
that Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to support his claim
13
that Defendants’ conduct was “fraudulent” and also was “unlawful”
14
under the CLRA, Plaintiff’s UCL claim survives on those prongs. As
15
to the “unfair” prong, Plaintiff provides little in his pleading,
16
beyond a recitation of the situations in which a plaintiff may show
17
that a defendant’s conduct is “unfair.” (See SAC ¶¶ 127-129); see
18
Eckler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2012 WL 5382218, at *4-5 (S.D.
19
Cal. 2012). Therefore, though Plaintiff’s UCL claim may proceed
20
under the “unlawful” and “fraudulent” prongs, Plaintiff has not
21
pleaded sufficient facts to support his claim under the “unfair”
22
prong.
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Defendants are correct that Plaintiff will bear the burden of
producing evidence that Defendants’ “Doctor Tested, Doctor
Approved” claim is false or misleading. Plaintiff’s allegation that
Defendants have not produced any evidence of research studies or
endorsements by clinical medical professionals does not shift the
burden of producing evidence to Defendants to substantiate their
“Doctor Tested, Doctor Approved” claim. See National Council
Against Health Fraud, Inc. v. King Bio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 107
Cal.App.4th 1336, 1344-45 (2003).
15
1
2
6. FDCA Allegations
Plaintiff’s UCL claim is based, in part, on allegedly unlawful
3
labels purporting to advertise RHW as an aphrodisiac. (See SAC ¶¶
4
43-48.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ intended use of RHW as
5
an aphrodisiac by consumers must be approved by the FDA, pursuant
6
to the FDCA and 21 C.F.R. § 310.528, before the drug can be
7
marketed to the public. (SAC ¶ 44-45.) RHW has not received FDA
8
approval to be labeled as an aphrodisiac, and therefore Plaintiff
9
alleges that RHW is “misbranded” under 21 U.S.C. § 352. (SAC ¶ 46.)
10
Defendants argue that to the extent that Plaintiff’s claims
11
are based on mislabeling or misbranding under the FDCA, Plaintiff’s
12
allegations are misguided because RHW is a dietary supplement, not
13
a drug, and as a result, RHW is not subject to the same approval
14
process before it makes claims regarding the benefits of using its
15
product. (Motion, Docket No. 36, pp.15-17.)
16
Under the FDCA, a “drug” is defined, in pertinent part, as an
17
“article[] intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation,
18
treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals.” 21
19
U.S.C. § 321(g)(1)(B). On the other hand, a dietary supplement,
20
which is a food and not a drug, is “a product ... intended to
21
supplement the diet that bears or contains one or more of the
22
following dietary ingredients: (A) a vitamin; (B) a mineral; (C) an
23
herb or other botanical; (D) an amino acid; (E) a dietary substance
24
for use by man to supplement the diet by increasing the total
25
dietary intake; or (F) a concentrate, metabolite, constituent,
26
extract, or combination of any ingredient described in clause (A),
27
(B), (C), (D), or (E).” 21 U.S.C. § 321(ff)(1).
28
16
1
RHW is labeled on its packaging as a “dietary supplement.”
2
(See SAC, Exh. A.) Further, although the packaging as a whole may
3
represent to a reasonable consumer that RHW will improve male
4
sexual performance, no statement on any packaging submitted as an
5
exhibit to the SAC proclaims that RHW is designed to cure erectile
6
dysfunction, impotence, or any other “disease.” Further, the word
7
“aphrodisiac” does not appear on any of the packaging. The Court,
8
therefore, finds that Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged that RHW
9
is a “drug,” requiring prior approval of its labeling by the FDA.
10
Therefore, to the extent that Plaintiff’s claims are based on
11
Defendants’ failure to obtain FDA approval for its packaging
12
claims, Plaintiff’s claims fail and are therefore dismissed.
13
14
*
*
*
*
In summary, the Court DENIES the Motion with respect to
15
Plaintiff’s fraud-based claims, except that the Court GRANTS the
16
Motion to the extent that Plaintiff’s claims are based on the
17
purported failure to obtain FDA approval for RHW’s packaging and
18
GRANTS the Motion as to Plaintiff’s UCL claim to the extent that it
19
is based on the “unfair” prong.
20
C. Warranty-Based Claims
21
Plaintiff brings claims alleging breach of express warranty,
22
breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and violation of
23
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Defendants argue that Plaintiff has
24
failed to state a warranty claim.
25
26
1. Express and Implied Warranty Claims
Defendants present two arguments as to why Plaintiff’s express
27
and implied warranty claims should be dismissed. First, Defendants
28
argue that Plaintiff did not provide the requisite notice and
17
1
opportunity to cure to Defendants prior to filing this action.
2
Second, Defendants argue that statements that are puffery are not
3
actionable as warranty claims.
4
As to the notice requirement, Defendants cite the proposition
5
that “[t]o avoid dismissal of a breach of contract or breach of
6
warranty claim in California, ‘[a] buyer must plead that notice of
7
the alleged breach was provided to the seller within a reasonable
8
time after discovery of the breach.’” Alvarez v. Chevron Corp., 656
9
F.3d 925, 932 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Stearns v. Select Comfort
10
Retail Corp., 763 F.Supp.2d 1128, 1142 (N.D. Cal. 2010)). However,
11
Defendants omit an important and applicable exception to this rule:
12
the notice requirement “is excused as to a manufacturer with which
13
the purchaser did not deal.” In re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended
14
Acceleration Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability
15
Litigation, 754 F.Supp.2d 1145, 1180 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (citing
16
Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, 59 Cal.2d 57, 61 (1963)).
17
Therefore, Plaintiff need not have provided notice to Defendants,
18
as he alleges that he purchased RHW at a liquor store in Los
19
Angeles, not directly from the manufacturers.
20
As to Defendants’ puffery argument, the Court already
21
addressed the puffery issue above and determined that the
22
statements at issue here, taken in context, are not mere puffery.
23
Therefore, this argument is unavailing. As a result, the Court
24
DENIES the Motion as to Plaintiff’s express and implied warranty
25
claims.
26
27
28
2. Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act Claim
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act (“MMWA”) by breaching specific, express written
18
1
warranties contained on RHW packaging. The MMWA defines a written
2
warranty as “any written affirmation of fact or written promise
3
made in connection with the sale of a consumer product by a
4
supplier to a buyer which relates to the nature of the material or
5
workmanship and affirms or promises that such material or
6
workmanship is defect free or will meet a specified level of
7
performance over a specified period of time.” 15 U.S.C. §
8
2301(6)(A). “A product description does not constitute a warranty
9
under the MMWA.” Anderson v. Jamba Juice Co., 888 F.Supp.2d 1000,
10
1004 (N.D. Cal. 2012); see also Brazil v. Dole Food Co., Inc., 935
11
F.Supp.2d 947, 966 (N.D. Cal. 2013).
12
As to the statements “Sexual Performance Enhancer for Men” and
13
“Fast & Effective,” Plaintiff has stated a plausible claim under
14
the MMWA. These claims relate to the nature of the product and are
15
not mere product descriptions. See Allen v. Hyland’s Inc., 2013 WL
16
1748408, at *5 (C.D. Cal. 2013) (“Plaintiffs claim both that the
17
products do not work and that there simply is no active ingredient
18
in Defendants’ products. In the sense that Defendants’ statements
19
imply that there is an active ingredient and that the active
20
ingredient performs any function beyond that of a sugar pill, those
21
statements relate to the nature of the material.”). “While a
22
product that is ‘synthetic’ and ‘artificial’ may not be defective,
23
a product that is ineffective is.” Id. at *6. Here, as in Allen,
24
Plaintiff claims that there is no ingredient in RHW that has the
25
effect of enhancing male sexual performance, despite Defendants’
26
representations on the packaging that the product will have such an
27
effect.
28
19
1
As to the statements that RHW is “Doctor Tested, Doctor
2
Approved,” those statements do not relate to the nature of the
3
product itself, except to the extent that they further support
4
Plaintiff’s theory that Defendants represented that RHW contains an
5
active, effective ingredient. Apart from that contribution to the
6
overall message, however, this statement does not relate directly
7
to the “material or workmanship” of the RHW pill and therefore is
8
not independently actionable under the MMWA.5
9
D. Class Issues
10
Defendants further request that the Court strike Plaintiff’s
11
putative class definition or, in the alternative, require Plaintiff
12
to provide a more definite statement of the class definition. The
13
Court declines to require Plaintiff to do more at this time.
14
However, at the time Plaintiff moves for class certification,
15
Plaintiff will be required to clarify to what extent he seeks to
16
include in the class definition individuals outside of the state of
17
California.
18
19
20
21
///
22
///
23
///
24
25
5
26
27
28
Plaintiff does not purport to base his MMWA claim on the “All
Natural” label, and rightly so. Several courts have determined that
the statement “All Natural” is merely a product description and
that the presence of artificial ingredients in a product so labeled
does not make that product “defective.” See, e.g., Anderson v.
Jamba Juice Co., 888 F.Supp.2d 1000, 1003-04 (N.D. Cal. 2012).
20
1
2
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion is GRANTED IN PART and
3
DENIED IN PART. As Plaintiff has already amended his complaint
4
twice, and as the Court finds that it would generally be futile to
5
allow Plaintiff to attempt to amend the identified deficiencies,
6
the dismissal of some portions of Plaintiff’s claims shall be
7
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
8
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
10
11
12
Dated:
September 19, 2014
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
21
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?