Pini USA, Inc. et al v. NB Global Commodities, LLC

Filing 39

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANTS FIRST AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM #29 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: NB Global is permitted leave to amend. If NB Global wishes to amend the FAC, it must do so no later than November 21, 2017. (lc)

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Central District of California

8
9
10
11

PINI USA, INC.; PINI POLSKA SP.
Z.O.O.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13
14

Case № 2:17-CV-04763-ODW-PLA

v.
NB GLOBAL COMMODITIES, LLC,

15

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO DISMISS
DEFENDANT’S FIRST AMENDED
COUNTERCLAIM [29]

Defendant.

16

I.

17

INTRODUCTION

18

Before the Court is Plaintiffs and Counter-Defendants Pini USA, Inc. and Pini

19

Polska SP. Z.o.o.’s (collectively “Pini”) Motion to Dismiss Defendant and Counter-

20

Claimant NB Global Commodities, LLC’s (“NB Global”) First Amended

21

Counterclaim. (Mot., ECF No. 29.) NB Global opposed Pini’s Motion on October 2,

22

2017. (Opp’n, ECF No. 30.) On October 6, 2017, Pini replied. (Reply, ECF No.

23

33.)1 For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Pini’s Motion.
II.

24

BACKGROUND

25

This action stems from an ongoing relationship whereby Pini agreed to prepare

26

and sell, and NB Global agreed to buy, various pork products. On June 28, 2017, Pini

27
28

1

After considering the papers filed in connection with the Motion, the Court deemed the matter
appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15.

1

filed its Complaint alleging that NB Global breached a number of the parties’

2

contracts, in the form of purchase orders, when NB Global failed pay for certain goods

3

that NB Global accepted or wrongfully rejected. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) On August

4

10, 2017, NB Global answered Pini’s Complaint and filed a Counterclaim against

5

Pini. (ECF Nos. 21, 22.) On September 9, 2017, NB Global filed its First Amended

6

Counterclaim, alleging causes of action for breach of contract, breach of covenant of

7

good faith and fair dealing, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of

8

implied warranty of fitness for particular purpose, and unfair business practices under

9

California Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq.

10

(First Am. Countercl.

(“FAC”), ECF No. 28.)

11

In the FAC, NB Global alleges the following facts, which the Court takes as

12

true and construes in the light most favorable to NB Global. See, e.g., Schueneman v.

13

Arena Pharm., Inc., 840 F.3d 698, 704 (9th Cir. 2016) (restating the generally-

14

accepted principle that “[o]rdinarily, when we review a motion to dismiss under

15

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), we accept [counterclaimant’s] allegations as

16

true and construe them in the light most favorable to the [counterclaimant]”) (internal

17

quotation marks and citation omitted).

18

Beginning in August 2015, NB Global and Pini entered into a series of purchase

19

orders, whereby NB Global ordered various fresh, non-GMO, hormone- and

20

antibiotic-free pork products, including bacon, pork chops, salami, and sancocho

21

(fried pork skins), that were to be produced in, and imported from, Poland. (FAC

22

¶¶ 7, 17.) Pini was required “to produce, ship, and deliver the pork products in a

23

timely manner and up to specification.”2 (Id. ¶ 9.) NB Global alleges that it had an

24

agreement with a national discount store chain to distribute the pork products it

25

ordered from Pini. (Id. ¶ 8.)

26
27
28

2

As explained further below, NB Global does not allege from what contract, if any, many of these
duties arise.

2

1

NB Global placed its first order with Pini in August 2015 (the “August 2015

2

Order”).3 (Id. ¶ 10.) Pini failed to ship the product until “mid-2016,” making NB

3

Global unable to distribute the product to its customer until September 2016. (Id.

4

¶ 12.)

5

In June 2016, NB Global ordered bacon and pork chops from Pini (the “June

6

2016 Order”).4 (Id. ¶ 13.) Pini delivered some of the June 2016 Order late. (Id. ¶ 14.)

7

For some of the products ordered, Pini delivered “mislabeled or un-labeled bacon

8

containers” that did not comply with USDA standards. (Id. ¶ 15.) Pini shipped pork

9

chops for purchase order #12134529 that contained xanthan gum. The presence of

10

xanthan gum prevented NB Global from distributing the pork chops because NB

11

Global would have been required to label them as “Pork Chop with Water-Binding

12

Product.” (Id. ¶ 16.) NB Global also alleges that some of Pini’s pork chops tested

13

positive for listeria. (Id.)

14

In August 2016, NB Global placed additional orders for fried pork skins, also

15

known as sancocho (the “August 2016 Order”).5 (Id. ¶ 17.) Pini failed to notify NB

16

Global when the sancocho shipped, causing the product to remain at ports in Houston

17

and Los Angeles at extra cost to NB Global. (Id. ¶ 19.) When NB Global received

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

It is not clear whether NB Global is alleging that the August 2015 Order was for just bacon or for
bacon and pork chops. NB Global first states that the order was for 90,000 units of 4.5 oz. of
smoked bacon. (FAC ¶ 10.) In the next paragraph, NB Global states that “[Pini] breached the
purchase order by failing to produce, ship, and deliver in a timely manner the smoked bacon and
pork chops. (Id. ¶ 11 (emphasis added).) Then, in the next paragraph, NB Global complains of late
delivery of that order, but only as to bacon. (Id. ¶ 12 (“The bacon was not shipped until mid-2016 . .
.”).) Also, unlike the other orders referenced in the FAC, NB Global does not allege a specific
purchase order number for the August 2015 Order. As explained below, this is only one of the many
problems with NB Global’s FAC.
4
NB Global lists the following purchase order numbers in the FAC as those memorializing the June
2016 Order of bacon and pork chops: 12134529, 12134800, 112134801, 1213802, 1213803,
1213804, 1213805, 1213806, 1213807, 1213810, 1213811, 1213812, 1213813, and 1213814. (Id.
¶ 13.)
5
NB Global alleges that the following purchase numbers make up the August 2016 Order:
12134681, 12134682, and 12134683. (Id. ¶ 17.)

3

1

the sancocho, it was not up to NB Global’s “specifications” because some of the

2

sancocho did not contain fat and the shipment was not uniform in size. (Id. ¶ 20.)

3

NB Global placed another order in November 2016 for salami and pepperoni

4

(the “November 2016 Order”).6 (Id. ¶ 21.) The terms of the November 2016 Order

5

“required [Pini] to use the correct ingredients for food coloring.” (Id. ¶ 22.) Instead

6

of using the “correct” ingredient, Pini used paprika powder that caused the coloring of

7

the food to fade after a few weeks. (Id. ¶ 23.)

8

Pini argues in its Motion to Dismiss that the FAC is deficient because NB

9

Global does not allege that it notified Pini of any defects in the products, a prerequisite

10

for NB Global’s breach of contract claim. Pini also asserts that the FAC fails to state

11

a claim as to any of NB Global’s five causes of action. The Court addresses each of

12

Pini’s arguments, in turn, below.

13

III.

LEGAL STANDARD

14

A court may dismiss a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for lack of a cognizable

15

legal theory or insufficient facts pleaded to support an otherwise cognizable legal

16

theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). To

17

survive a dismissal motion, a complaint need only satisfy the minimal notice pleading

18

requirements of Rule 8(a)(2)—a short and plain statement of the claim. Porter v.

19

Jones, 319 F.3d 483, 494 (9th Cir. 2003). The factual “allegations must be enough to

20

raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550

21

U.S. 544, 555 (2007). That is, the complaint must “contain sufficient factual matter,

22

accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v.

23

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

24

The determination whether a complaint satisfies the plausibility standard is a

25

“context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial

26

experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. A court is generally limited to the

27
28

6

NB Global alleges that the November 2016 Order was memorialized in purchase orders 12134808
and 12134809. (Id. ¶ 21.)

4

1

pleadings and must construe all “factual allegations set forth in the complaint ... as

2

true and ... in the light most favorable” to the plaintiff. Lee v. City of L.A., 250 F.3d

3

668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001). But a court need not blindly accept conclusory allegations,

4

unwarranted deductions of fact, and unreasonable inferences. Sprewell v. Golden State

5

Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001).

6
7

IV.
A.

DISCUSSION

Pini’s Request for Judicial Notice

8

Pini requests that the Court take judicial notice of the nineteen purchase orders

9

referenced by number in the FAC.7 (Req. for Judicial Notice Exs. 1–19, ECF No. 29-

10

2.)

NB Global objects on the grounds that Pini has not laid the foundation or

11

established the authenticity for the purchase orders. (Objection to Req. for Judicial

12

Notice, ECF No. 30-1.) NB Global, however, does not argue that the purchase orders

13

attached to Pini’s Request are not, in fact, the purchase orders at issue in this case.

14

Instead, NB Global argues that the Court should not consider the purchase orders and

15

the underlying facts contained therein because they are “subject to dispute and are not

16

authenticated.” (Opp’n 8, ECF No. 8.)

17

Generally, when ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a district court

18

may not consider evidence outside of the pleadings. See U.S. v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903,

19

907–08 (9th Cir. 2003). One exception to that general rule is when a document is

20

incorporated by reference into a complaint. Id. at 908. “Even if a document is not

21

attached to a complaint, it may be incorporated by reference into a complaint if the

22

plaintiff refers extensively to the document or the document forms the basis of the

23

plaintiff’s claims.” Id. If that is the case, “the defendant may offer such a document,

24

7

25
26
27
28

For the twentieth purchase order referenced in the FAC, for the August 2015 Order, NB Global
does not provide a purchase order number. (See FAC ¶¶ 10–11.) Pini argues that NB Global did
not, in fact, make an order in August 2015, because the company was not formed until October
2015. (Mot. 3 n.3.) Because the Court (1) must accept the allegations in the FAC as true for the
purpose of ruling on Pini’s Motion to Dismiss and (2) finds that NB Global has failed to state a
claim as to the August 2015 Order on other grounds, the Court declines to address this argument.
Therefore, Pini’s Request for Judicial Notice as to Exhibit 20 is DENIED. (Req. for Judicial Notice
Ex. 20, ECF No. 29-2.)

5

1

and the district court may treat such document as part of the complaint, and thus may

2

assume that its contents are true for purposes of a motion to dismiss under Rule

3

12(b)(6).” Id.

4

The Court finds that the purchase orders are incorporated by reference into the

5

FAC. NB Global lists the relevant purchase orders, on which it bases its claims, by

6

number in the FAC. Therefore, Pini may present, and the Court may consider, those

7

purchase orders in ruling on Pini’s Motion to Dismiss. The Court GRANTS Pini’s

8

Request for Judicial Notice as to Exhibits 1 through 19.

9

B.

Breach of Contract Claim

10

Pini asserts that NB Global has failed to plead facts sufficient to support its

11

claim that Pini breached the twenty purchase orders described in the FAC. (Mot. 11.)

12

The Court agrees.

13

NB Global alleges that the parties memorialized their agreements through

14

various purchase orders. (FAC ¶¶ 7, 10, 13, 17, 21.) NB Global does not allege that

15

the parties’ agreements consisted of anything other than the terms in the various

16

purchase orders. As described above, the Court has taken judicial notice of the

17

nineteen purchase orders referenced by number in the FAC. These purchase orders,

18

however, do not contain any of the requirements NB Global alleged Pini breached.

19

None of the purchase orders mention any labeling specifications, requirements

20

regarding xanthan gum, fat content, or the use of certain food coloring. (Req. for

21

Judicial Notice Exs. 1–19.) Therefore, the Court finds that NB Global has failed to

22

state a claim for breach of contract for breach of those requirements.

23

Pini also argues that the purchase orders fail to specify a specific delivery time

24

and, therefore, NB Global has not alleged a breach of contract claim for late delivery

25

of the goods. (Mot. 3.) California law requires that “[t]he time for shipment or any

26

other action under a contract if not . . . agreed upon shall be a reasonable time.” Cal.

27

Com. Code § 2309(1). NB Global alleges that some of Pini’s shipments were delayed

28

up to nine months and others were delayed one week to two months. (FAC ¶¶ 11, 14.)

6

1

Although the “reasonableness” of delivery time is a fact-intensive inquiry, usually not

2

to be decided on a Motion to Dismiss, the Court finds that NB Global has not alleged

3

sufficient facts to state a claim that the timing of the Pini’s delivery was unreasonable

4

under the circumstances surrounding the parties’ various agreements. For example,

5

NB Global does not allege that the parties’ course of dealing or performance, or

6

certain industry standards, made Pini’s delivery times unreasonable. Therefore, the

7

Court finds that NB Global has failed to state a claim for breach of contract.

8

C.

Notification of Defects in Pork Shipments

9

Pini additionally argues that NB Global’s breach of contract claim is deficient

10

because NB Global failed to allege that it notified Pini of any defects in the various

11

shipments. (Mot. 9, 14.) NB Global responds that (1) pre-suit notice is not required

12

for a breach of contract claim and, alternatively, (2) it adequately alleged pre-suit

13

notice in the FAC. (Opp’n 10.) The Court disagrees with NB Global on both points.

14

Under the California Commercial Code, a buyer is deemed to have accepted

15

goods when the buyer “fails to make an effective rejection” after a reasonable

16

opportunity to inspect them. Cal. Com. Code § 2606. Where the buyer has accepted

17

tender of the challenged goods, “[t]he buyer must, within a reasonable time after he or

18

she discovers or should have discovered any breach, notify the seller of breach or be

19

barred from any remedy.” Cal. Com. Code § 2607(3)(A). The Ninth Circuit has held

20

that California’s notice provision strictly requires pre-suit notice:
The purpose of giving notice of breach is to allow the breaching
party to cure the breach and thereby avoid the necessity of
litigating the matter in court.
This purpose would be
completely undermined if it could be satisfied with the giving
of post-suit notice. For that reason, we agree with the district
court . . . that the notice requirement means pre-suit notice.

21
22
23
24
25

Alvarez v. Chevron Corp., 656 F.3d 925, 932 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal citations

26

omitted). Further, “[t]o avoid dismissal of a breach of contract or breach of warranty

27

claim in California, ‘a buyer must plead that notice of the alleged breach was provided

28

to the seller within a reasonable time after discovery of the breach.’” Id. (quoting

7

1

Stearns v. Select Comfort Retail Corp., 763 F. Supp. 2d 1128, 1142 (N.D. Cal. 2010)).

2

There can be no question that under California law, a party is required to plead that

3

they provided pre-suit notice to adequately allege breach of contract.

4

Here, NB Global claims that it adequately alleged pre-suit notice of Pini’s

5

breach due to mislabeling of certain products, because paragraph 15 of the FAC

6

provides that “[NB Global] had to arrange for correct labels” and “[Pini] sent

7

corrected labels.” (FAC ¶ 15.) NB Global argues that “Pini could not have resent the

8

corrected labels unless NB Global notified Pini of the nonconforming goods.” (Opp’n

9

10.) The Court declines to allow NB Global to plead its case through implication. To

10

satisfy Rule 8, NB Global must set forth facts sufficient to allege each element of its

11

causes of action. Paragraph 15 does not sufficiently allege pre-suit notice. Even

12

more, that paragraph speaks only to the mislabeling defect, and not the many other

13

defects complained of in the FAC. Therefore, for this additional reason, the Court

14

finds that NB Global has failed to adequately plead its breach of contract claim.

15

D.

Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Claim

16

Pini argues that NB Global’s claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and

17

fair dealing should be dismissed because it is duplicative of its breach of contract

18

claim. (Mot. 14.) A breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing

19

involves something more than breach of the contractual duty itself. Careau & Co. v.

20

Sec. Pac. Bus. Credit, Inc., 222 Cal. App. 3d 1371, 1394 (1990). If “the allegations

21

do not go beyond the statement of a mere contract breach and, relying on the same

22

alleged acts, simply seek the same damages or other relief already claimed in a

23

companion contract cause of action, they may be disregarded as superfluous as no

24

additional claim is actually stated.” Id. at 1395. There are three exceptions to this

25

rule: (1) where a breach of a consensual contract claim is not alleged, (2) where the

26

[counter-claimant] is seeking recovery in tort, and (3) where the [counter-claimant]

27

alleges that the defendant acted in bad faith to frustrate the contract’s benefits.

28

8

1

Celador Int’l Ltd. v. Walt Disney Co., 347 F. Supp. 2d 846, 852 (C.D. Cal. 2004)

2

(citations omitted).
NB Global alleges that Pini:
breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by
engaging in the following conduct, including, but not limited
to: completely failing to provide the pork products in a
timely manner, by providing products that did not conform
to the standards and specifications agreed upon, and by
failing to label or correctly label the pork products.

3
4
5
6
7
8

(FAC ¶ 33.) This is precisely the alleged conduct that NB Global relies upon for its

9

breach of contract claim. Additionally, none of the three recognized exceptions apply:

10

(1) NB Global is alleging a breach of contract claim, (2) it is not seeking recovery in

11

tort, and (3) it has not alleged that Pini acted in bad faith. Therefore, the Court finds

12

that NB Global’s claim for breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing is

13

duplicative of its claim for breach of contract and must be dismissed.

14

E.

Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability Claim

15

Pini argues that NB Global’s claim for breach of implied warranty of

16

merchantability claim fails because NB Global has not alleged that Pini’s products

17

were not fit for ordinary use. (Mot. 16–17.) To state a claim for breach of implied

18

warranty of merchantability, a party must plead facts sufficient to show that “the

19

product did not possess even the most basic degree of fitness for ordinary use.”

20

Mocek v. Alfa Leisure, Inc., 114 Cal. App. 4th 406 (2003). Alternatively, a party may

21

base such a claim on a tendered product that does not conform to affirmative

22

representations made by the seller. Zakaria v. Gerber Prods. Co., No. LA CV15-

23

00200-JAK-E, 2015 WL 3827654, at *11 (C.D. Cal. June 18, 2015) (citing Cal. Com.

24

Code § 2314(2)(f)).

25

In the section dedicated to this cause of action in the FAC, NB Global alleges

26

that Pini breached the implied warranty of merchantability by providing pork chops

27

containing xanthan gum and sancocho that did not meet the required specifications.

28

(FAC ¶¶ 41–42.) NB Global does not allege whether the tendered pork chops or

9

1

sancocho were unfit for ordinary use, nor does it provide facts sufficient to establish

2

that Pini made an affirmative representation as to the supposed “specifications.” As

3

explained above, the Court finds that the purchase orders do not contain any such

4

specifications.

5

NB Global does not respond to Pini’s arguments concerning the sancocho or

6

pork chops containing xanthan gum. NB Global’s only response in support of its

7

claim for breach of implied warranty of merchantability is that it has sufficiently pled

8

a breach as a result of the presence of listeria in some of Pini’s pork chops. (See

9

Opp’n 15.) The listeria claims, however, are not mentioned in the section of the FAC

10

dedicated to merchantability. Instead, NB Global asks the Court to consider the facts

11

alleged in the breach-of-contract section as incorporated by reference in the later

12

section on merchantability. (Id.) While incorporation by reference is permitted under

13

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(c), the Court will not allow NB Global to rely on

14

facts for its merchantability claim that are not mentioned at all in the relevant section

15

of the FAC. Allowing such pleading would not provide Pini with “fair notice of what

16

[NB Global’s] claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Conley v. Gibson, 355

17

U.S. 41, 47 (1957); see also Saunders v. Saunders, No. CV 1-05-0699-RCC, 2009

18

WL 382922, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2009) (“A complaint having the factual

19

elements of a cause of action scattered throughout the complaint and not organized

20

into a ‘short and plain statement of the claim’ may be dismissed for failure to satisfy

21

Rule 8(a).”).

22

Additionally, NB Global’s claim fails because it has not sufficiently alleged

23

how the presence of listeria renders uncooked pork “unfit for ordinary use.” NB

24

Global alleges only that Pini “provided pork chops that tested positive for listeria,”

25

without any explanation as to why or how that made the pork unfit. (FAC ¶ 16.) Pini

26

argues, for example, that there is no requirement that raw meat be tested for listeria

27

because proper cooking destroys the bacteria. (Mot. 17); see also 9 C.F.R. § 430.4

28

(requiring testing and controls for listeria only in ready-to-eat pork products). While

10

1

the Court declines to decide now whether the presence of listeria in uncooked pork

2

would or would not render to product unfit, it is clear from the face of the FAC that

3

NB Global has not connected the dots as to why listeria makes the pork chops it

4

ordered unsafe or unsellable.

5

affirmative representations regarding the presence of listeria, or lack thereof, in its

6

products. For these reasons, the Court finds that NB Global has failed to state a claim

7

for breach of implied warranty of merchantability.

8

F.

Nor has NB Global alleged that Pini made any

Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness for Particular Purpose Claim

9

Pini argues that NB Global has failed to state a claim for breach of implied

10

warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, because NB Global’s asserted use, to re-

11

sell the food items to stores, was an ordinary, not particular, purpose. (Mot. 17.) NB

12

Global responds that its stated purpose of distributing the meat products is a

13

sufficiently particular purpose. (Opp’n 16.) The Court disagrees.

14

The warranty of fitness for a particular purpose is implied by law when “a seller

15

has reason to know that a buyer wishes goods for a particular purpose and is relying

16

on the seller’s skill and judgment to furnish those goods.” Martinez v. Metabolife

17

Int’l, Inc., 113 Cal. App. 4th 181, 189 (2003). This warranty is breached when the

18

goods are not reasonably fit for the intended purpose, causing injury. Id. The crux of

19

the issue here is whether NB Global purchased pork products from Pini for a

20

“particular purpose” such that it relied on Pini’s skill. Comment 2 to the relevant

21

California statutory provision states:
A ‘particular purpose’ differs from the ordinary purpose for
which the goods are used in that it envisages a specific use
by the buyer which is peculiar to the nature of his business
whereas the ordinary purposes for which goods are used are
those envisaged in the concept of merchantability and go to
uses which are customarily made of the goods in question.
For example, shoes are generally used for the purpose of
walking upon ordinary ground, but a seller may know that a
particular pair was selected to be used for climbing
mountains.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

11

1

Cal. Com. Code § 2315, cmt. 2.

2

NB Global alleges that, at the time of purchase, Pini “knew or had reason to

3

know that [NG Global] intended to obtain fresh and ‘up-to-specifications’ pork

4

products in order for [NB Global] to stock the shelves of its national retail store

5

customers.” (FAC ¶ 49.) The Court finds that NB Global has inadequately pled this

6

cause of action. Meat products are ordinarily sold and used for human consumption,

7

and NB Global’s status as a distributor in the supply chain does not mean that its

8

purpose is “particular.” See NuCal Foods, Inc. v. Quality Egg LLC, 918 F. Supp. 2d

9

1023 (E.D. Cal. 2013) (finding that plaintiff failed to state a claim against egg seller

10

because repackaging and distributing unbroken shell eggs was not “peculiar to the

11

nature” of plaintiff’s business). Additionally, as explained above, NB Global has not

12

sufficiently alleged how Pini breached “specifications” that were not contained in the

13

various purchase orders. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Pini’s Motion to Dismiss as

14

to NB Global’s claim for implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.

15

G.

Unfair Business Practices Claim

16

In the section of the FAC dedicated to NB Global’s claim of Unfair Business

17

Practices, NB Global alleges merely that Pini violated section 17200 of the California

18

Business and Professions Code by performing “the many wrongful actions described

19

herein.” (FAC ¶ 59.) Pini argues that because NB Global’s other allegations fail, this

20

one must necessarily fail as well. (Mot. 19.)

21

California’s Unfair Competition Law, Business & Professions Code § 17200,

22

provides relief for “unfair competition,” which is defined as “any unlawful, unfair, or

23

fraudulent act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.”

24

McVicar v. Goodman Global, Inc., 1 F. Supp. 3d 1044, 1049–50 (C.D. Cal. 2014)

25

(citing Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200).

26

California’s Uniform Commercial Code when (1) Pini did not deliver the goods in a

27

timely manner; (2) Pini did not tender goods that were up-to-specifications; (3) certain

28

12

NB Global claims that Pini violated

1

orders contained xanthan gum or listeria; and (4) labels were not up-to-code per

2

USDA standards for public safety. (Opp’n 18.)

3

First, the Court finds that NB Global fails to state a claim for unfair business

4

practices, because it has failed to provide a “short and plain statement of the claim.”

5

Saunders v. Saunders, 2009 WL 382922, at *2. Instead, NB Global relies solely on its

6

reference to “the many wrongful actions described” in other sections of the FAC.

7

This is not sufficient to provide Pini notice of the claim. Second, the Court has

8

already found that NB Global has not adequately alleged that the tendered products

9

did not comply with various “specifications” or were unfit for consumption. Lastly,

10

NB Global has not alleged that Pini’s supposed failure to label the products in

11

conformance with USDA standards was unlawful. Therefore, the Court finds that NB

12

Global has failed to state a claim for unfair business practices.

13

H.

Leave to Amend

14

As a general rule, a court should freely give leave to amend a complaint that has

15

been dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). But a court may deny leave to amend when

16

“the court determines that the allegation of other facts consistent with the challenged

17

pleading could not possibly cure the deficiency.” Schreiber Distrib. Co. v. Serv-Well

18

Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir. 1986); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d

19

1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000).

20
21

Because NB Global could potentially amend the FAC in a way to correct the
deficiencies identified in this Order, the Court allows NB Global leave to amend.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

13

1

V.

CONCLUSION

2

For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS Pini’s Motion to Dismiss

3

NB Global’s FAC. NB Global is permitted leave to amend. If NB Global wishes to

4

amend the FAC, it must do so no later than November 21, 2017.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

October 31, 2017

9
10
11
12

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

14