Lam v. General Mills, Inc.

Filing 47

Order by Hon. Samuel Conti granting in part and denying in part 33 Motion to Dismiss.(sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/10/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

9

ANNIE LAM, on behalf of
herself, and all others
similarly situated,

10

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,

11
v.
12
GENERAL MILLS, INC.,
13
Defendant.
14
15

I.

Case No. 11-5056-SC
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S
MOTION TO DISMISS

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Annie Lam ("Lam") brings this putative class action

16
17

against Defendant General Mills, Inc. ("General Mills") for

18

allegedly misleading consumers about the nutritional qualities of

19

its fruit snacks, specifically Fruit Roll-Ups, Fruit by the Foot,

20

and other, unidentified "similar products."

21

44.

22

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.

23

No. 33 ("MTD").

24

("Opp'n"), 45 ("Reply").

25

finds the matter suitable for resolution without oral argument.

26

detailed below, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part General

27

Mills's motion to dismiss.

28

///

ECF No. 27 ("FAC") ¶

General Mills now moves to dismiss the action under Federal

The motion is fully briefed.

ECF

ECF Nos. 44

Having reviewed the papers, the Court
As

1

II.

2

BACKGROUND
As it must on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court

3

takes all well-pleaded facts in Lam's First Amended Complaint

4

("FAC"), the operative pleading, as true.

5

Fortune 500 company primarily concerned with food products and the

6

marketing of many well-known brands, such as Betty Crocker.

7

14.

8

products.

9

Fruit by the Foot as well as other similar products" (the "Fruit

United States District Court

FAC ¶

The General Mills portfolio includes more than one hundred
Id.

Of these products, Lam targets "Fruit Roll-Ups and

10
For the Northern District of California

General Mills is a

Snacks").

11

these "other similar products" might be.

12

Id. ¶ 1.

The FAC does not specifically identify what

The Court takes judicial notice of the packaging of Fruit

13

Roll-Ups and Fruit by the Foot, examples of which were filed with

14

the Court by General Mills.

15

of the Fruit Roll-Ups and Fruit by the Foot packaging contains a

16

fanciful depiction of the products, which resemble fruit leather,

17

along with a statement identifying the product as a "fruit flavored

18

snack" and "strawberry natural flavored."

19

right corner of the front panel states the "calories per serving,"

20

and describes the products as "a good source of vitamin C," "low

21

fat," and "gluten free."

22

"made with real fruit," along with a nutrition facts box which

23

lists the products' nutritional content and ingredients in much

24

smaller type.

Id.

Mand Decl. Ex. A, B.1

Id.

Id.

The front panel

A box in the bottom

The side panel contains the label

The ingredients of strawberry-flavored Fruit

25
26
27
28

1

Benjamin Mand ("Mand"), the Marketing Manager for General Mills
Fruit Flavored Snacks, filed a declaration in support of General
Mills's motion, attaching pictures of the Fruit Snacks' packaging.
ECF No. 35 ("Mand Decl.").
2

1

Roll-Ups, listed in descending order based on the amount of the

2

particular ingredient contained in the product, are:

3
Pears from Concentrate, Corn Syrup, Dried Corn Syrup,
Sugar, Partially Hydrogenated Cottonseed Oil, Citric
Acid, Acetylated Monoglycerides, Fruit Pectin, Dextrose,
Malic Acid, Vitamin C (ascorbic acid), Natural Flavor,
Color (red 40, yellows 5 & 6, blue 1).

4
5
6

Strawberry-flavored Fruit by the Foot contains almost

7

Id.

8

identical ingredients.

Id.

United States District Court

Lam, who purchased the Fruit Snacks for herself and her

10
For the Northern District of California

9

children, alleges that the packaging misleads consumers into

11

believing that the Fruit Snacks are healthful.

12

alleges that General Mills fails to properly disclose that the

13

Fruit Snacks contain partially hydrogenated oil, an artificial

14

substance containing "trans fats" which has been known to cause

15

coronary disease, heart attacks, and death.

16

alleges that the Fruit Snacks contain large amounts of added

17

sugars; contain artificial food dyes; have no significant amounts

18

of real fruit; and have no dietary fiber.

19

that the statement "made with real fruit" incorrectly describes the

20

ingredients, which include "pears from concentrate," rather than

21

the fruit indicated by the name of the product.

22

example, strawberry-flavored Fruit Roll-Ups contain no

23

strawberries.

24

"fruit flavored snacks," "naturally flavored," and "gluten free."2

25

Id. ¶ 17.

Id. ¶¶ 22-23.

FAC ¶¶ 7, 13.

Id. ¶ 7.

Id. ¶ 21.

Lam

Lam also

Lam alleges

Id. ¶ 22.

For

Lam also takes aim at the labels:

26
27
28

2

In the FAC, Lam also targets the statements "good source of
Vitamin C," "[low number] of calories," and "low fat," id. ¶ 17;
however, she withdraws these claims in her opposition brief, Opp'n
at 13.
3

1

Lam's FAC asserts claims for: (1) unfair and deceptive acts

2

and practices in violation of Section 1750 of the California

3

Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); (2) unlawful business acts

4

and practices in violation of the California Unfair Competition Law

5

("UCL"); (3) fraudulent business acts and practices in violation of

6

the California UCL; (4) misleading and deceptive practices in

7

violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17500 et

8

seq., aka California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"); (5) breach of

9

express warranty; (6) breach of implied warranty of

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

merchantability; and (7) unjust enrichment.3

11

other things, Lam seeks restitution, disgorgement, monetary

12

damages, and an order enjoining General Mills's allegedly unlawful

13

and deceptive acts and practices.

Id. ¶¶ 34-83.

Among

14
15

III. LEGAL STANDARD

16

A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

17

12(b)(6) "tests the legal sufficiency of a claim."

18

Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001).

19

on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of

20

sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory."

21

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.

22

1988).

23

should assume their veracity and then determine whether they

24

plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief."

25

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 664 (2009).

26

must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint

Navarro v.

"Dismissal can be based

"When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court

Ashcroft v.

However, "the tenet that a court

27
28

3

The FAC also asserts a claim for violation of the Minnesota
Uniform Deceptive Practices Act, FAC ¶¶ 34-40, but this claim has
been withdrawn, Opp'n at 19.
4

1

is inapplicable to legal conclusions.

2

elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory

3

statements, do not suffice."

4

v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).

5

complaint must be both "sufficiently detailed to give fair notice

6

to the opposing party of the nature of the claim so that the party

7

may effectively defend against it" and "sufficiently plausible"

8

such that "it is not unfair to require the opposing party to be

9

subjected to the expense of discovery."

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

Threadbare recitals of the

Id. at 663. (citing Bell Atl. Corp.
The allegations made in a

Starr v. Baca, 633 F.3d

1191, 1204 (9th Cir. 2011).

11
12

IV.

DISCUSSION

13

A.

14

Lam's claims are predicated on allegedly false and misleading

15

statements that appear on the packaging of the Fruit Snacks, which

16

are defined as "Fruit Roll-Ups and Fruit by the Foot as well as

17

other similar products."

18

these "other similar products" are.

19

portfolio includes more than 100 leading U.S. brands."

20

The company should not have to guess at which of these other brands

21

are the subject of this suit.

22

FAC WITH LEAVE TO AMEND to the extent that it is predicated on

23

statements made concerning "other similar products."

24

amend the FAC to specifically identify the particular General Mills

25

products that she intends to target.

Definition of the Fruit Snacks

FAC ¶ 1.

It is entirely unclear what
General Mills's "brand
Id. ¶ 14.

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the

Plaintiff may

26

B.

27

General Mills argues that Lam's claims are preempted by the

28

NLEA Preemption

Nutrition Labeling and Education Act ("NLEA"), 21 U.S.C. § 343-1,

5

1

to the extent they are predicated on the "fruit flavored" and

2

"naturally flavored" labels which appear on the Fruit Snacks'

3

packaging.

4

preempted because she is seeking to enforce federal regulations

5

prohibiting false and misleading statements.

6

MTD at 6.

Lam responds that her claims are not

Opp'n at 6.

Understanding the United States Food and Drug Administration's

dispute.

9

the FDA with the authority to "protect the public health by

10

United States District Court

("FDA") regulatory scheme is central to addressing the parties'

8

For the Northern District of California

7

ensuring that . . . foods are safe, wholesome, sanitary, and

11

properly labeled."

12

the FDCA requires proper labeling of foods containing artificial

13

flavoring.

14

the FDA has promulgated a comprehensive set of regulations

15

pertaining to labeling requirements.

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ("FDCA") vests

21 U.S.C. § 393(b)(2)(A).

See 21 U.S.C. § 343(k).

Among other things,

Pursuant to this authority,

See 21 C.F.R. § 101.1 et seq.

16

In 1990, Congress amended the FDCA by enacting the NLEA.

17

NLEA was intended to "establish uniform national standards for the

18

nutritional claims and the required nutrient information displayed

19

on food labels."

20

amended the FDCA by adding a preemption provision, codified at 21

21

U.S.C. § 343-1.

22

addressing certain subjects that are "not identical to" various

23

standards set forth by the FDCA, including the labeling

24

requirements set forth in 21 U.S.C. § 343(k).

25

1(a)(3).

26

means that the State requirement directly or indirectly imposes

27

obligations or contains provisions concerning the composition of

1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3336, 3342.

The

The NLEA also

This provision expressly preempts state laws

21 U.S.C. § 343-

Under FDA regulations, the term "not identical to . . .

28

6

1

labeling" that are "not imposed or contained in the applicable

2

provision[s]."

3

21 C.F.R. § 100.1(c)(4).

General Mills contends that Lam's claims are preempted because

4

statements that the Fruit Snacks are "fruit flavored" and

5

"naturally flavored" are expressly permitted by FDA regulations

6

promulgated under 21 U.S.C. § 343(k).

7

specifically points to 21 C.F.R § 101.22(i), which provides, in

8

relevant part:

9

United States District Court

General Mills

14

If the label, labeling, or advertising of a food makes
any direct or indirect representations with respect to
the primary recognizable flavor(s), by word, vignette,
e.g., depiction of a fruit, or other means, or if for any
other reason the manufacturer or distributor of a food
wishes to designate the type of flavor in the food other
than through the statement of ingredients, such flavor
shall be considered the characterizing flavor and shall
be declared in the following way:

15

. . .

10
For the Northern District of California

MTD at 8.

11
12
13

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

(i) If the food is one that is commonly expected to
contain a characterizing food ingredient, e.g.,
strawberries in "strawberry shortcake", and the food
contains natural flavor derived from such ingredient
and
an
amount
of
characterizing
ingredient
insufficient to independently characterize the food,
or the food contains no such ingredient, the name of
the
characterizing
flavor
may
be
immediately
preceded by the word "natural" and shall be
immediately followed by the word "flavored" in
letters not less than one-half the height of the
letters in the name of the characterizing flavor,
e.g., "natural strawberry flavored shortcake," or
"strawberry flavored shortcake".

25

Thus, the regulation allows a producer to label a product as

26

"natural strawberry flavored," even if that product contains no

27

strawberries.

28

is bound to apply it.

While the regulation's logic is troubling, the Court

7

1

Lam argues that her claims are not preempted because she is

2

seeking to enforce the regulatory scheme.

3

which provides that a food is misbranded "[i]f it bears or contains

4

any artificial flavoring, artificial coloring, or chemical

5

preservative, unless it bears labeling stating that fact."

6

at 6 (citing 21 U.S.C. § 343(k)).

7

flavored" and "naturally flavored" labels are false and misleading

8

because the Fruit Snacks are flavored with "unnatural, non-fruit

9

ingredients."

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

Lam points to the FDCA,

Opp'n

Lam also argues that the "fruit

Id.

Lam's arguments are unavailing.

The crux of the FAC is that

11

the Fruit Snacks' labeling is deceptive because the products'

12

ingredients, not their flavors, are unnatural.

13

7, 23.

14

as "fruit flavored" or "naturally flavored," even if it does not

15

contain fruit or natural ingredients.

16

"contains natural flavor" which is "derived from" the

17

"characterizing food ingredient," it will not run afoul of the

18

regulation.

19

21 C.F.R. § 1022(i) or 21 U.S.C. § 343(k) because their flavors are

20

artificial, then she must allege as much in her complaint.

21

not.

22

preempted by the FDCA.4

23
24

See, e.g., FAC ¶¶

However, under 21 C.F.R § 1022(i), a product may be labeled

So long as that product

If Lam means to assert that the Fruit Snacks violate

She has

Accordingly, her claims concerning the flavoring labels are

Lam points to a number of cases concerning the use of the
labels "natural" and "all natural" to describe a product's

25
26
27
28

4

In her opposition brief, Lam argues that the Fruit Snacks are
flavored with "corn syrup, maltodextrin, and partially hydrogenated
oil." Opp'n at 6. It is unclear whether this list is exhaustive.
In any event, the FAC does not specifically allege that the Fruit
Snacks are artificially flavored, and Rule 8 requires that Lam set
forth her allegations in the pleadings, not her briefing.
8

Opp'n at 7-10.5

1

ingredients.

2

they deal with the labeling of a product's ingredients, not the

3

labeling of its flavors.

4

which is related to the Fruit Snacks flavor -- is expressly

5

permitted by FDA regulations.

This was not the case in the

6

authority relied upon by Lam.

See Holk, 575 F.3d at 340 ("[T]he

7

FDA declined to adopt a formal definition of the term 'natural' . .

8

. '[b]ecause of resource limitations and other agency

9

priorities'"); Hitt, 2009 WL 449190, at *4 (same); Lockwood, 597 F.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

These cases are inapposite since

Here, the labeling challenged by Lam --

Supp. 2d at 1033-34 (same).

11

For these reasons, the Court finds that Lam's claims are

12

preempted to the extent they are predicated on the "naturally

13

flavored" and "fruit flavored" labels.

14

C.

15

The Court next addresses whether Lam's allegations regarding

16

the labels "gluten free" and "made with real fruit" can support a

17

claim under the UCL, CLRA, or FAL.

18

"unlawful, unfair[,] or fraudulent business act or practice."

19

Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.

20

competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices."

21

Code § 1770(a).

22

enter into any obligation through the dissemination of "untrue or

23

misleading" statements.

24

to state a claim under the UCL, CLRA, or FAL, Lam must allege that

25

the Fruit Snacks' labels are likely to deceive a reasonable

Lam's UCL, CLRA, and FAL Claims

The UCL prohibits any
Cal.

The CLRA prohibits "unfair methods of
Cal. Civ.

The FAL makes it unlawful to induce the public to

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500.

In order

26
27
28

5

Citing Holk v. Snapple Beverage Corp., 575 F.3d 329 (3rd Cir.
2009); Hitt v. Arizona Beverage Co., No. 08 CV 809 WQH, 2009 WL
449190 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2009); Lockwood v. Conagra Foods, Inc.,
597 F. Supp. 2d 1028 (N.D. Cal. 2009).
9

1995).

3

false, but also advertising which[,] although true, is either

4

actually misleading or which has a capacity, likelihood or tendency

5

to deceive or confuse the public.'"

6

4th 939, 951 (Cal. 2002) (quoting Leoni v. State Bar, 39 Cal. 3d

7

609, 626 (Cal. 1985)).

8

will usually be a question of fact not appropriate for decision on

9

demurrer."

10

United States District Court

consumer.

2

For the Northern District of California

1

Cir. 2008).

11

See Freeman v. Time, Inc., 68 F.3d 285, 289 (9th Cir.

"[T]hese laws prohibit 'not only advertising which is

Kasky v. Nike, Inc., 27 Cal.

"[W]hether a business practice is deceptive

Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 552, F.3d 934, 938 (9th

The Court finds that the statement "gluten free" cannot

12

support Plaintiff's claims under the UCL, CLRA, or FAL.

13

statement is objectively true and communicates nothing more than

14

the absence of gluten in the product -- a message used to convey

15

the suitability of the Fruit Snacks to consumers with celiac

16

disease and others who may wish to avoid gluten.

17

consumer is unlikely to interpret the statement "gluten free" to

18

mean that the Fruit Snacks contain no partially hydrogenated oils,

19

low amounts of sugar or corn-syrup, or that the Fruit Snacks are

20

otherwise healthful.

21

The

A reasonable

The Court reaches a different conclusion with respect to the

22

statement "made with real fruit."

23

"incorrectly describes the ingredients, which include partially

24

hydrogenated oil, sugars in quantities amounting to approximately

25

half of each serving, and 'pears from concentrate' rather than the

26

fruit indicated by the name of the Product."

27

argues that the challenged statements, along with the depiction of

28

imitation fruit leather on the packaging, are likely to deceive

10

Lam alleges that the statement

FAC ¶ 22.

Lam also

1

consumers into thinking the Fruit Snacks are healthful, natural,

2

pressed-and-dried fruit products, when, in fact, they are an

3

amalgamation of artificial, non-fruit ingredients.

4

General Mills argues that the statement "made with real fruit" is

5

objectively true and that a reasonable consumer would not interpret

6

the statement to mean that certain fruits were present in a

7

particular quantity or that a specific fruit was present in the

8

product.

9

Opp'n at 15.

MTD at 16-17.

The Court agrees with Lam.

A reasonable consumer might make

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

certain assumptions about the type and quantity of fruit in the

11

Fruit Snacks based on the statement "made with real fruit," along

12

with other statements prominently featured on the products'

13

packaging.

14

appears in large and colorful letters on the side panel of the

15

packaging of strawberry Fruit Roll-Ups.

16

"strawberry" appears in large letters on the front, back, top, and

17

bottom panels.

18

reasonable consumer to believe that product is made with real

19

strawberries, not pears from concentrate.

20

Ups" and "Fruit by the Foot," along with the fanciful depiction of

21

the products, which resemble fruit leather, may lead to further

22

confusion about the Fruit Snacks' ingredients.

23

prominent aspects of the packaging, a reasonable consumer might be

24

surprised to learn that a substantial portion of each serving of

25

the Fruit Snacks consists of partially hydrogenated oil and sugars.

26

It is true that General Mills lists the ingredients of the Fruit

27

Snacks in small print on the bottom of the side panel.

28

the pleading stage, the Court cannot conclude that a reasonable

For example, the statement "made with real fruit"

Additionally, the word

Taken together, these statements might lead a

11

The names "Fruit Roll-

After seeing these

However, at

1

consumer should be expected to look beyond "made with real fruit"

2

in order to discover the truth in the small print.

3

The Court's conclusion is supported by the Ninth Circuit's

4

opinion in Gerber.

5

juice snacks for toddlers were made with "fruit juice and other all

6

natural ingredients."

7

found that these statements "could easily be interpreted by

8

consumers as a claim that all the ingredients in the product were

9

natural, which appears to be false."

In that case, Gerber had stated that its fruit

Gerber, 552 F.3d at 939.

Id.

The Ninth Circuit

The products' packaging

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

also juxtaposed the words "Fruit Juice" with images of fruits such

11

as oranges, peaches, strawberries, and cherries, even though the

12

product contained no fruit juice from any of the fruits pictured.

13

Id. at 936.

14

reasonable consumer would not be deceived by such labeling because

15

the packaging specifically identified the products' ingredients.

16

Id. at 939.

17

requires an ingredient list so that manufacturers can mislead

18

consumers and then rely on the ingredient list to correct those

19

misinterpretations and provide a shield for liability for the

20

deception."

21

list cannot be used to correct the message that reasonable

22

consumers may take from the rest of the packaging: that the Fruit

23

Snacks are made with a particular type and quantity of fruit.6

24

6

25
26
27
28

The Ninth Circuit rejected the notion that a

The court explained: "We do not think that the FDA

Id.

Likewise, here, the Fruit Snacks' ingredients

General Mills argues that Gerber is distinguishable since the
case also involved nutrition claims that are not present here. MTD
at 18-19. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit noted that "the claim
that Snacks is 'just one of a variety of nutritious Gerber
Graduates foods and juices that have been specifically designed to
help toddlers grow up strong and healthy' adds to the potential
deception." 552 F.3d at 939. While there is no indication that
General Mills has expressly represented that the Fruit Snacks are
"nutritious," that is hardly dispositive. As noted above, Gerber
involved a number of other potentially deceptive statements.
12

1

General Mills relies on two district court opinions decided

2

before Gerber, which dismissed UCL, CLRA, and FAL claims concerning

3

the labeling of food and beverage products.

4

(citing McKinniss v. Sunny Delight Beverages Co., CV0702034-RGKJCX

5

("Sunny Delight"), 2007 WL 4766525 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2007);

6

McKinniss v. Gen. Mills, Inc., CV 07-2521GAFFMOX ("McKinnis"), 2007

7

WL 4762172 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2007)).

8

held that a reasonable consumer should be expected to peruse the

9

FDA-mandated ingredients list to determine the true contents of a

See MTD at 16-17

In both cases, the courts

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

product.

11

2007 WL 4762172, at *3.

12

opinions to the extent that they are inconsistent with Gerber.

13

General Mills also cites to a number of post-Gerber cases

See Sunny Delight, 2007 WL 4766525, at *4; McKinniss,
The Court declines to follow these

MTD at 19.7

14

involving sugary cereals or ice cream.

15

these cases did the defendants claim that their products were made

16

with real fruit.

17

which involved the cereal "Froot Loops," the court found that "the

18

fanciful use of a nonsensical word ['Froot'] cannot reasonably be

19

interpreted to imply that the Product contains or is made from

20

actual fruit."

21

that no reasonable consumer could mistake "cereal balls with a

22

rough, textured surface in hues of deep purple, teal, chartreuse

23

green and bright red" for natural fruit and noted that the

24

defendant did not represent that cereal was made with real fruit.

As such, they are distinguishable.

2009 WL 1439086, at *3.

In none of

In Videtto,

In Werbel, the court found

25
26
27
28

7

Citing Videtto v. Kellogg USA, 2:08CV01324-MCEDAD, 2009 WL
1439086 (E.D. Cal. May 21, 2009); Werbel v. Pepsico, Inc., C 0904456 SBA, 2010 WL 2673860 (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2010); Carrea v.
Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream, Inc., C 10-01044 JSW, 2011 WL 159380
(N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011); Dvora v. Gen. Mills, Inc., CV 11-1074-GW
PLAX, 2011 WL 1897349 (C.D. Cal. May 16, 2011)
13

1

2010 WL 2673860, at *3-4.

2

reasonable consumer would be deceived into thinking that ice cream

3

was wholesome or otherwise healthy by labels such as "original" or

4

"classic."

5

found that no reasonable consumer would believe that the cereal at

6

issue contained real fruit when "there are no pictures of any

7

fruits on the packaging, and there is no statement that the cereal

8

was made with actual fruit."

9

In Carrea, the court found that no

2011 WL 159380, at *5.

Finally, in Dvora, the court

2011 WL 1897349, at *7.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES General Mills's motion to

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

dismiss with respect to Lam's UCL, CLRA, and FAL claims.

11

claims may proceed to the extent they are predicated on the

12

statement "made with real fruit."

These

13

D.

14

For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Lam has

15

failed to state a claim for breach of express or implied warranty.

16

"Any description of the goods which is made part of the basis

Lam's Claims for Breach of Express and Implied Warranty

17

of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall

18

conform to the description."

19

plead a cause of action for breach of express warranty, a plaintiff

20

must "allege the exact terms of the warranty, plaintiff's

21

reasonable reliance thereon, and a breach of that warranty which

22

proximately causes plaintiff['s] injury."

23

Nutrition Corp., 185 Cal. App. 3d 135, 142 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986).

24

plaintiff may satisfy these requirements where she shows that the

25

defendant "utilized the advertising media to urge the use and

26

application of [the subject product] and expressly warranted to the

27

general public including plaintiff herein, that said product was

Cal. Comm. Code § 2313(1)(b).

28

14

To

Williams v. Beechnut
A

1

effective, proper and safe for its intended use."

2

quotation marks omitted).

Id. (internal

3

As to implied warranties, the California Commercial Code

4

provides that "a warranty that the goods shall be merchantable is

5

implied in a contract for their sale."

6

To be merchantable, a product must "[c]onform to the promises or

7

affirmations made on the container or label and must be fit for the

8

ordinary purposes for which such goods are used."

9

Zogarts, 14 Cal. 3d 104, 117-18 (1975) (internal quotations and

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

Cal. Comm. Code § 2314(1).

Hauter v.

citations omitted).

11

Lam's claim for breach of express warranty is based on the

12

allegation that General Mills warranted that its "Fruit Snacks were

13

healthful and had particular healthful characteristics."

14

Likewise, Lam's claim for breach of implied warranty is predicated

15

on the allegation that the Fruit Snacks were "promoted, marketed,

16

advertised, packaged, and labeled as healthful and having

17

particular health characteristics."

18

to point to any affirmative statement, whether it be in General

19

Mills's advertising or the Fruit Snacks' packaging, indicating that

20

the Fruit Snacks are healthful.

21

Fruit Snacks' packaging contains a number of statements concerning

22

the Fruit Snacks' ingredients and flavoring.

23

challenge the truth of any of these statements.

24

allege that the Fruit Snacks are not proper or safe for consumption

25

as food.

26
27

Id. ¶ 78.

FAC ¶ 74.

However, Lam fails

As set forth more fully above, the

Lam does not
Nor does she

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Lam's claims for breach of
express and implied warranty.

28

15

1

V.

CONCLUSION

2

For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS in part and

3

DENIES in part General Mills's motion to dismiss Lam's FAC.

4

Specifically:

5

•

6
7

The FAC is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND to the extent that it
is predicated on unidentified General Mills products.

•

The FAC is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE to the extent that it is

8

predicated on statements that the Fruit Snacks are "fruit

9

flavored," "naturally flavored," and "gluten free."

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

•

11
12
13

Lam's claims for breach of express and implied warranty are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

•

Lam's claims remain undisturbed in all other respects.

Lam may amend her complaint within thirty (30) days of this Order.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17
18

Dated:

May 10, 2012
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

16