Sensible Foods, LLC v. World Gourmet, Inc. et al
Filing
43
Order by Hon. Samuel Conti granting in part and denying in part 30 Motion to Dismiss.(sclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/21/2012)
1
2
3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
7
8
10
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
9
11
12
13
14
SENSIBLE FOODS, LLC,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
WORLD GOURMET, INC.; HAIN GOURMET, )
INC.; HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC.; )
WORLD GOURMET MARKETING, LLC; AND )
SENSIBLE SNACKS, INC.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
I.
15
Case No. 11-2819 SC
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS'
MOTION TO DISMISS
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Sensible Foods, LLC ("Plaintiff") brings this action
16
against Defendants World Gourmet, Inc. ("World Gourmet"), Hain
17
Gourmet, Inc. ("Hain Gourmet"), Hain Celestial Group, Inc., ("Hain
18
Celestial"), World Gourmet Marketing, LLC ("WGM"), and Sensible
19
Snacks, Inc. ("Sensible Snacks") (collectively, "Defendants").
20
No. 28 ("FAC").
21
Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule
22
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
23
("Mot.").
24
claims.
25
37 ("Reply").
26
PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants' Motion.
27
///
28
///
ECF
Now before the Court is Defendants' Motion to
ECF No. 30
Defendants seeks to dismiss five of the FAC's twelve
Id.
The Motion is fully briefed.
ECF Nos. 36 ("Opp'n"),
For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS IN
1
II.
BACKGROUND
As always when considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court
2
3
takes all the well-pleaded facts of the operative complaint as
4
true.
5
previous Order partially granting Defendants' motion to dismiss
6
Plaintiff's original complaint.
7
brief, this case is about a trademark dispute between competitors
8
in the healthy snack food business.
9
use or have sought to use trademarks that prominently feature the
The Court has already summarized this case's history in a
See ECF No. 26 ("Order").
In
Plaintiff and Defendants both
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
word "sensible."
11
parties' ongoing trademark dispute, Defendant Hain Celestial
12
contemplated buying Plaintiff, but the sale never materialized.
13
the course of sale negotiations, the parties signed a
14
Confidentiality Agreement.
15
proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("TTAB"),
16
Defendants improperly disclosed certain confidential information in
17
violation of the Agreement.
18
misuse of trade names and marks similar to Plaintiff's.
19
The procedural history of this case is as follows.
20
initially brought suit before this Court on sixteen claims.
ECF
21
No. 1 ("Compl.").
ECF
22
No. 14.
23
Court dismissed with prejudice.1
24
Plaintiff's claims without prejudice.2
25
1
26
27
28
Some time ago, in apparent response to the
In
Plaintiff now alleges that during
Plaintiff also alleges continuing
Plaintiff
Defendants moved to dismiss all sixteen.
Plaintiff voluntarily withdrew four claims, which the
The Court also dismissed six of
Finally, the Court left six
The Court dismissed with prejudice claims for: trademark
infringement under California law; cyberpiracy under both the
federal Lanham Act and California law; and unjust enrichment.
Order at 6.
2
The Court dismissed without prejudice claims for: breach of
contract; breach of implied contract; breach of implied covenant of
2
1
of Plaintiff's claims undisturbed.3
Plaintiff timely filed a First Amended Complaint.4
2
Plaintiff
3
now asserts claims for: (1) breach of implied contract, against
4
Hain Celestial; (2) breach of contract -- specifically, the
5
Confidentiality Agreement -- against Hain Celestial; (3) breach of
6
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, against Hain
7
Celestial; (4) contributory infringement; (5) unfair competition
8
under California Business and Professions Code section 17200 et
9
seq.; (6) deceptive trade practices under California Business and
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Professions Code section 17500 et seq.; (7) false advertising under
11
California Business and Professions Code section 17500 et seq.; (8)
12
trademark infringement under the federal Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §
13
1051 et seq.5; (9) reverse confusion under the Lanham Act, § 1114
14
et seq.; (10) cancellation of federal trademark registration under
15
the Lanham Act, §§ 1064 and 1119; (11) false advertising,
16
misrepresentation, and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, §
17
1125(a) et seq.; and (12) common law trademark infringement.
18
///
19
20
21
good faith and fair dealing; contributory trademark infringement;
and false advertising under both California law and the federal
Lanham Act. Order at 19-20.
3
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The Court left undisturbed claims for: unfair competition and
deceptive trade practices under California law; trademark
infringement, reverse confusion, and cancellation of trademark
registration under the Lanham Act; and common law trademark
infringement. Order at 20.
4
Plaintiff attached the Confidentiality Agreement to the First
Amended Complaint. ECF No. 28 Ex. CA ("CA"). The Court therefore
may properly consider the contents of the Confidentiality Agreement
while deciding this motion. Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard
Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1555 n.19 (9th Cir. 1990).
5
Further references to the Lanham Act are to section numbers
within Title 15 of the United States Code.
3
1
Of these twelve claims, Defendants challenge five: claim 1
2
(breach of implied contract by Hain Celestial); claim 2 (breach of
3
the Confidentiality Agreement by Hain Celestial); claim 3 (breach
4
of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by Hain
5
Celestial); claim 7 (false advertising under California law); and
6
claim 11 (false advertising, misrepresentation, and unfair
7
competition under the Lanham Act).
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
III. LEGAL STANDARD
A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
11
12(b)(6) "tests the legal sufficiency of a claim."
Navarro v.
12
Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001).
13
on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of
14
sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory."
15
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.
16
1988).
17
should assume their veracity and then determine whether they
18
plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief."
19
Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009).
20
court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a
21
complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions.
22
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
23
conclusory statements, do not suffice."
24
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
25
in a complaint must be both "sufficiently detailed to give fair
26
notice to the opposing party of the nature of the claim so that the
27
party may effectively defend against it" and "sufficiently
28
plausible" such that "it is not unfair to require the opposing
"Dismissal can be based
"When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court
4
Ashcroft v.
However, "the tenet that a
Threadbare
Id. (citing Bell Atl.
The allegations made
1
party to be subjected to the expense of discovery."
Starr v. Baca,
2
633 F.3d 1191, 1204 (9th Cir. 2011).
3
plead sufficient facts, leave to amend should be given freely, but
4
"a district court may dismiss without leave where a plaintiff's
5
proposed amendments would fail to cure the pleading deficiencies
6
and amendment would be futile."
7
Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011).
When a complaint fails to
Cervantes v. Countrywide Home
8
9
IV.
DISCUSSION
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
A.
Breach of Implied Contract by Hain Celestial (Claim 1)
11
To state a claim for breach of contract, a plaintiff must
12
allege (1) that a contract existed between plaintiff and defendant,
13
(2) that plaintiff has substantially performed or been excused from
14
performance, (3) that defendant breached, and (4) that plaintiff
15
suffered resultant damages.
16
Appel, 74 Cal. App. 4th 299, 307 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) (citing
17
Otworth v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 166 Cal. App. 3d 452, 459 (Cal. Ct.
18
App. 1985)).
19
the same elements as does a cause of action for breach of contract,
20
except that the promise is not expressed in words but is implied
21
from the promisor's conduct."
22
Inc., 161 Cal. App. 4th 172, 182 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008).
See, e.g., Harris v. Rudin, Richman &
"A cause of action for breach of implied contract has
Yari v. Producers Guild of Am.,
23
The Court previously dismissed Plaintiff's breach of implied
24
contract claim because Plaintiff failed to allege which defendant
25
was a party to the implied contract, what the terms of the contract
26
were, or how it had been breached.
27
has substantially revised this claim.
28
the other party to the implied contract was Hain Celestial.
5
See Order at 13-14.
Plaintiff
Plaintiff now alleges that
FAC ¶
1
191.
2
obligations on Hain Celestial: first, to stop using the marks
3
"sensible snack" and "sensible snacks" (together, "the Sensible
4
Snack(s) mark"), and, second, to "enter purchase discussions for
5
the Plaintiff . . . ."
6
Celestial continued to use the Sensible Snack(s) mark,
7
notwithstanding the implied contract.
Id.
Plaintiff further alleges that Hain
Id. ¶ 195.
Defendants move to dismiss on three grounds.
8
9
Plaintiff alleges that the implied contract imposed two
First, they
claim that the Confidentiality Agreement precludes Plaintiff from
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
asserting a claim for breach of implied contract because it
11
contained a merger clause that "expressly superseded all prior
12
agreements 'with respect to the subject matter thereof.'"
13
6 (quoting FAC Ex. 1 ("CA") at 3).
14
First Amended Complaint to admit that Hain Celestial entered into
15
the allegedly promised purchase discussions, and therefore to
16
negate Plaintiff's claim for breach of a promise to do so.
17
7.
18
inadequately alleges the existence of consideration to support Hain
19
Celestial's purported promise to stop using the Sensible Snack(s)
20
mark.
Mot. at
Second, Defendants read the
Id. at
Third, they contend that the First Amended Complaint
See id. at 7-10.
Plaintiff responds that Hain Celestial's alleged promise to
21
22
discontinue use of the Sensible Snack(s) mark lies outside the
23
scope of the Confidentiality Agreement's merger clause.
24
8.
25
clause against Hain Celestial because, according to Plaintiff's
26
brief, Hain Celestial's attorney drafted the Confidentiality
27
Agreement.
28
stay the TTAB proceedings, alleged in the First Amended Complaint
Opp'n at
It urges the Court to interpret any ambiguity in the merger
Id. at 9.
Lastly, Plaintiff argues that its promise to
6
1
at paragraph 191, served as consideration for Hain Celestial's
2
promises.
3
Id. at 10-12.
The Court declines to dismiss this claim.
Taking the
4
allegations of the First Amended Complaint as true, Plaintiff has
5
alleged that it exchanged an agreement to stay the TTAB proceedings
6
for two promises from Hain Celestial: a promise to discontinue use
7
of the Sensible Snack(s) mark and a promise to discuss purchasing
8
Plaintiff.
9
effectively admits that Hain Celestial held the allegedly promised
As Defendants note, the First Amended Complaint
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
purchase discussions with Plaintiff.
But holding the purchase
11
discussions would not, by itself, give Plaintiff the benefit of its
12
alleged bargain.
13
of Hain Celestial's alleged promise to stop using the Sensible
14
Snack(s) mark.
15
the Court must take this allegation as true.
Plaintiff would also have to receive the benefit
Plaintiff alleges that it did not, FAC ¶ 195, and
16
Defendants' argument that the Confidentiality Agreement's
17
merger clause precludes Plaintiff's breach of implied contract
18
claim is unavailing.
19
Confidentiality Agreement specify what "subject matter," or
20
matters, the parties had in mind when they wrote the phrase "with
21
respect to the subject matter thereof" in the Confidentiality
22
Agreement's merger clause.
23
the Court to make factual findings based on evidence extrinsic to
24
the Confidentiality Agreement as well as to the pleadings.
25
Court may not go so far in the context of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
26
Neither the First Amended Complaint nor the
Answering that question would require
The
Defendants contend that the First Amended Complaint
27
contradicts Plaintiff's argument that the Confidentiality Agreement
28
related to a different "subject matter" than the alleged implied
7
1
contract.
Reply at 3.
The Court sees no such contradiction.
The
2
pleading describes with reasonable clarity a straightforward
3
exchange of promises: Plaintiff's promise to stay the TTAB
4
proceedings for Hain Celestial's promises to discuss purchasing
5
Plaintiff and to stop using the Sensible Snack(s) mark.
6
Confidentiality Agreement simply does not address Hain Celestial's
7
second alleged promise.
8
argument that the Confidentiality Agreement and the alleged implied
9
contract concern two different subject matters.
The
That is not inconsistent with Plaintiff's
Hain Celestial
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
allegedly made two promises, but it does not necessarily follow
11
that both promises must have been part of the subject matter of the
12
Confidentiality Agreement:
13
pertain to both promises while the Confidentiality Agreement
14
pertained to only one.
15
the express terms of the Confidentiality Agreement and the
16
pleadings.
The Court cannot determine otherwise from
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants' motion to dismiss
17
18
The alleged implied contract could
claim 1.6
B.
19
Breach of Confidentiality Agreement by Hain Celestial
(Claim 2)
20
Plaintiff intends to assert this claim against Hain Celestial
21
22
for violation of the Confidentiality Agreement.
FAC ¶¶ 200-21.
23
its briefing, however, Plaintiff admits that the First Amended
24
In
Complaint contains an "inadvertent drafting mistake" and seeks
25
26
27
28
6
Because the Court has not relied on the rule of construction
construing ambiguous documents against their drafters, see Opp'n at
9, the Court does not reach Defendant's argument that application
of the rule here would be improper, Reply at 4.
8
1
leave to amend.
2
this claim is whether to dismiss it with prejudice.
3
Opp'n at 13-14.
Therefore, the only question for
The Court rules that dismissal with prejudice is warranted
4
because the amendments proposed by Plaintiff would be futile.
5
Cervantes, 656 F.3d at 1041.
6
brief to indicate what it intended to write in the First Amended
7
Complaint.
8
alleges that Hain Celestial revealed Plaintiff's confidential
9
information -- which Plaintiff identifies as its "profitability" --
Id. at 13.
See
Plaintiff has used its Opposition
The First Amended Complaint currently
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
in a document filed as part of the TTAB proceedings, the TTAB
11
Answer.
12
a different document filed in that same proceeding, the TTAB
13
Response.
14
and the Court takes judicial notice of them for the purpose of
15
determining whether the proposed amendment would be futile.
16
ECF Nos. 32 Ex. 1 ("TTAB Answer"), 39 Ex. 1 ("TTAB Response").
17
Defendants point out, neither document says anything about
18
Plaintiff's profitability.
19
does not adequately plead a breach, and neither would Plaintiff's
20
proposed amendment.
21
its claim in the Opposition brief amounted to Plaintiff's third
22
bite at the apple, that the Court's previous Order already gave
23
Plaintiff guidance concerning this claim, and that the Court has
24
already put Plaintiff on warning that failure to attend to
25
important details would not be tolerated, see Order at 1 n.1, the
26
Court sees no reason to give Plaintiff a fourth bite.
27
28
Id. at 13.
Plaintiff would amend the pleading to indicate
Id. at 13.
Both documents are part of the public record
See
As
Therefore, Plaintiff's current pleading
Considering that Plaintiff's restatement of
The Court GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss claim 2 and
DISMISSES that claim WITH PREJUDICE.
9
C.
1
Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
by Hain Celestial (Claim 3)
2
The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is
3
4
"implied by law in every contract."
Guz, 24 Cal. 4th at 350.
5
Court previously dismissed Plaintiff's implied covenant claim
6
because Plaintiff failed to identify on which contract it based the
7
claim.
8
existence of three contracts with Hain Celestial.
9
Plaintiff identifies these as: (1) "an implied agreement that [Hain
The
Plaintiff has amended this claim and now alleges the
FAC § 225.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Celestial] would discontinue the use of the phrase, 'sensible
11
snack(s),' to eliminate the resulting public confusion and
12
Plaintiff would agree to stay the TTAB Proceedings;" (2) the
13
written Confidentiality Agreement; and (3) "an oral agreement to
14
facilitate the purchase of Plaintiff by [Hain Celestial] . . . ."
15
Id.
16
implied covenants arising from these promises by allegedly
17
continuing to use the Sensible Snack(s) mark, revealing Plaintiff's
18
confidential information, and refusing to buy Plaintiff.
19
Plaintiff claims, in essence, that Hain Celestial breached the
None of these provide a proper basis for a breach of implied
20
covenant claim.
To the extent that Plaintiff bases this claim on
21
violations of the implied covenant arising from the first and
22
second agreements, it must fail because these allegations merely
23
reallege contractual breaches as breaches of the implied covenant.
24
Such claims are superfluous and properly dismissed.
25
4th at 352-53.
26
Hain Celestial's alleged refusal to buy Plaintiff, the claim must
27
fail for two reasons.
28
substantive duties or limits on the contracting parties beyond
Guz, 24 Cal.
To the extent that Plaintiff bases this claim on
First, the implied covenant cannot "impose
10
1
those incorporated in the specific terms of their agreement."
Id.
2
at 349-50.
3
enter into purchase discussions, not an agreement to buy Plaintiff.
4
And, as discussed in Section IV.A supra, the First Amended
5
Complaint indicates that Hain Celestial did in fact enter into the
6
contemplated purchase discussion.
7
for breach of the implied covenant on allegations that Plaintiff
8
actually received the benefit of its bargain.
Plaintiff alleges the existence of an agreement to
Plaintiff cannot base a claim
The only way this agreement could support a breach of implied
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
covenant claim is if it was an agreement for Hain Celestial to
11
later agree to buy Plaintiff -- that is, an "agreement to agree,"
12
as distinct from an agreement to negotiate.
13
Robbins U.S.A., 96 Cal. App. 4th 1251, 1257-58 n.10 (Cal. Ct. App.
14
2002) (explaining distinction).
15
existence of an agreement to negotiate, an agreement which, taking
16
the allegations of the First Amended Complaint as true, Hain
17
Celestial substantially performed.
18
that its agreement with Hain Celestial amounted to an agreement to
19
later agree to purchase Plaintiff.
20
alia, that Hain Celestial "reneged on its promise to pay a fair
21
price").
22
invalid as a matter of law.
23
n.10.
24
discussions, Plaintiff received the benefit of that bargain.
25
Either way, the implied covenant claim fails as a matter of law.
26
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss
See Copeland v. Baskin
Plaintiff essentially alleges the
Plaintiff also, however, hints
See FAC ¶ 236 (alleging, inter
To the extent that this is an agreement to agree, it is
Copeland, 96 Cal. App. 4th at 1257-58
To the extent it is merely an agreement to enter purchase
27
claim 3 and DISMISSES that claim WITH PREJUDICE.
28
///
11
D.
1
False Advertising Under California Law (Claim 7) and
2
False Advertising, Misrepresentation, and Unfair
3
Competition under the Lanham Act (Claim 11)
As in its previous Order, the Court addresses Plaintiff's
4
5
state and federal false advertising claims together.
Previously,
6
the Court dismissed Plaintiff's false advertising claims because
7
they identified no false statements of fact.
8
Plaintiff has extensively revised these claims.
9
(state law claim), ¶¶ 328-37 (Lanham Act claim, incorporating
Order at 15-16.
FAC ¶¶ 267-301
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
allegations in state law claim).
Plaintiff now alleges that
11
Defendants have made false statements by: (1) using the word
12
"veggie" in the name of its Veggie Straws, Veggie Chips, and Veggie
13
Crisps products when in fact those products are "primarily potato
14
product[s]," see id. ¶¶ 268, 282; (2) using the word "apple" in the
15
name of its Apple Straws product when in fact that product is a
16
"primarily potato product," see id. ¶¶ 268, 283; (3) making various
17
health-related claims -- for example, that Defendants' products are
18
"the next generation in unique and better-for-you snacks" -- that
19
mislead the public into thinking Defendants' products are healthy,
20
see id. ¶¶ 278, 291;
21
trademark "Sensible Portions" partially in front of a heart-shaped
22
design, in a manner that misleads the public into thinking
23
Defendants' products are healthy, see Opp'n at 17 (citing FAC ¶
24
101).
and (4) on Defendants' logo, positioning the
25
While a court deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion must take a
26
complaint's well-pleaded factual allegations as true, it also must
27
determine, relying on its "judicial experience and common sense,"
28
whether those allegations amount to a "plausible" claim.
12
Iqbal,
1
129 S. Ct. at 1950.
2
plausibility requirement.
3
strains the boundaries of the English language -- to say that
4
products made primarily from potatoes are not made of "veggies."
5
Similarly, Plaintiff complains of the word "apple" in the name of
6
the Apple Straws product, all the while alleging that the product
7
contains pureed apples.
8
cannot credibly claim that the words "veggie" and "apple," when
9
used to describe products containing veggies and apples, are
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Here, Plaintiff has not met Iqbal's
"literal falsit[ies]."
It is simply implausible -- indeed, it
FAC ¶ 271.
In both cases, Plaintiff
Id. ¶¶ 282, 283.
Plaintiff's claim that Defendants have made actionably false
11
12
health claims fares no better.
A district court may determine as a
13
matter of law whether an advertising statement is mere puffery or a
14
factual, and hence actionable, statement.
15
Inc. v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 173 F.3d 725, 731 (9th Cir.
16
1999).
17
of being reasonably interpreted as a statement of objective fact."7
18
Id.
19
Opp'n at 14-15 (collecting statements).
20
examples, the statement that Defendants' products contain the
21
"right" ingredients, FAC § 277, is not capable of being proved
22
false.
23
claim that its products are "guilt free," id. ¶ 278, as a statement
24
of objective fact.
Coastal Abstract Serv.,
Actionable statements are "capable of being proved false or
Here, each statement identified by Plaintiff is puffery.
See
To take two representative
Likewise, no consumer could reasonably take Defendants'
25
26
27
28
7
A corollary of this rule is that Plaintiff's statements on these
points -- for example, its statement that "[t]he relevant
purchasing public thinks that [Defendants'] Products are healthy,"
FAC ¶ 291 -- are not factual allegations but rather conclusions of
law which are not entitled to the presumption of truth. Cf. Iqbal,
129 S. Ct. at 1950.
13
Plaintiff's last argument, that the Sensible Portions logo
1
2
itself forms the basis of a false advertising claim because it
3
includes a heart symbol, lacks merit.
4
statement "capable of being proved false or of being reasonably
5
interpreted as a statement of objective fact."
6
Serv., 173 F.3d at 731.
7
discussion of various parts of Food and Drug Administration
8
regulations promulgated in Title 21 of the Code of Federal
9
Regulations.
A heart symbol is not a
Coastal Abstract
Plaintiff devotes considerable time to a
Opp'n at 14-18.
This discussion is marginally
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
relevant at best because Defendants do not rely on the FDA
11
regulations and Plaintiff has not brought a claim under them.
12
Plaintiff has adequately pled facts that allow the Court to
13
ascertain the viability of Plaintiff's false advertising claims,
14
and these claims fail as a matter of law.
15
GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss claims 7 and 11 and DISMISSES
16
those claims WITH PREJUDICE.
Accordingly, the Court
17
18
V.
CONCLUSION
19
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES
20
IN PART the motion by Defendants World Gourmet, Inc., Hain Gourmet,
21
Inc., Hain Celestial Group, Inc., World Gourmet Marketing, LLC, and
22
Sensible Snacks, Inc. to dismiss Plaintiff Sensible Foods, LLC's
23
First Amended Complaint, and rules as follows:
24
•
Plaintiff's second claim (breach of contract), third claim
25
(breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing),
26
seventh claim (false advertising under California Business and
27
Professions Code section 17500), and eleventh claim (false
28
advertising, misrepresentation, and unfair competition under
14
1
the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) et seq.) are DISMISSED
2
WITH PREJUDICE.
3
•
Plaintiff's first claim (breach of implied contract) remains
4
undisturbed, as do the other claims asserted in Plaintiff's
5
First Amended Complaint.
6
7
The parties are hereby ordered to appear before this Court for
8
a case management conference on Friday, March 16, 2012, at 10:00
9
a.m. in Courtroom One, United States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Avenue, San Francisco, California.
The parties are to file one
11
Joint Case Management Conference Statement seven days prior to the
12
conference.
13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
16
17
Dated: February 21, 2012
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
15
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?