Lilly et al v. Jamba Juice Company et al

Filing 25

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS; VACATING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; SETTING DEADLINE FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION MOTION by Judge Jon S. Tigar, denying 11 Motion to Dismiss. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/18/2013)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
ALETA LILLY, et al.,

7

Case No. 13-cv-02998-JST

Plaintiffs,
8
v.
9
JAMBA JUICE COMPANY, et al.,

10

Defendants.

Re: ECF No. 11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
DISMISS; VACATING CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE;
SETTING DEADLINE FOR CLASS
CERTIFICATION MOTION

I.

INTRODUCTION

13

Defendants Jamba Juice Company and Inventure Foods, Inc. (“Defendants”) have moved

14

to dismiss the complaint in this action. ECF No. 11. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

15

78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds that the parties’ briefs have thoroughly

16

addressed the issues, rendering the matter suitable for disposition without oral argument. The

17

hearing on this matter, currently scheduled for November 21, 2013, is hereby VACATED.

18

II.

BACKGROUND
Factual Background1

19

A.

20

Defendants produce frozen smoothie kits, which are labeled as “all natural” and are

21

available in five flavors: Mango-A-Go-Go, Strawberries Wild, Caribbean Passion, Orange Dream

22

Machine and Razzmatazz. ¶¶ 2-3. Plaintiff Aleta Lilly purchased Strawberries Wild smoothie

23

kits from approximately March 2010 to approximately November 2012, and purchased Caribbean

24

Passion smoothie kits from approximately July 2011 to approximately November 2012. ¶ 12.

25

Plaintiff David Cox purchased Caribbean Passion smoothie kits “within the last three years.” ¶ 13.

26

Both plaintiffs allege that they relied on Defendants’ representations that the products were “all

27
28

1

On a motion to dismiss, the Court takes the facts in this paragraph from Plaintiffs’ complaint.

1

natural,” but that the products did not contain only “all natural” ingredients, and that they would

2

not have been purchased the products, or paid less for them, if they had known that fact. ¶¶ 12-13.

3

B.

Procedural History

4

Plaintiffs Lilly and Cox filed a proposed class action complaint in this action in June 2013.

5

The complaint brings causes of action under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act

6

(“CLRA”), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750 et seq., the California False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. &

7

Prof. Code §§ 17500 et seq., the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§

8

17200, et seq., and for breach of warranty pursuant to Cal. Comm. Code § 2313. ¶¶ 42-70. The

9

complaint indicates that Plaintiffs will seek certification of a class comprised all persons who

10

purchased any one or more of the five smoothie kit products. ¶ 33.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

C.

Jurisdiction

12

Plaintiffs assert, and Defendants do not dispute, that Plaintiffs and class members are of

13

diverse citizenship from Defendants, there are more than 100 class members nationwide, and the

14

aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000. Therefore, the Court has jurisdiction over

15

this action pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d).

16

III.

ANALYSIS

17

Defendants have moved to dismiss certain claims in the complaint on two grounds. First,

18

Defendants argue that the named plaintiffs lack Article III standing to assert claims related to the

19

Orange Dream Machine smoothie kit because they did not purchase it and it is not substantially

20

similar to the products they did purchase. Second, Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs lack

21

statutory standing under the CLRA to bring actions related to the Orange Dream Machine

22

smoothie kit, for similar reasons.

23

For reasons more fully explained in the undersigned’s order in Clancy v. Bromley Tea Co.,

24

the Court does not lack subject-matter jurisdiction over this action because the named plaintiffs

25

did not purchase all of the same products as members of the class they propose to represent. No.

26

12-cv-03003-JST, 2013 WL 4081632, at *3-6 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2013); see also Greenwood v.

27

Compucredit Corp., No. 08-cv-04878 CW, 2010 WL 4807095, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2010)

28

(“‘Representative parties who have a direct and substantial interest have standing; the question
2

1

whether they may be allowed to present claims on behalf of others who have similar, but not

2

identical, interests depends not on standing, but on an assessment of typicality and adequacy of

3

representation.’”) (quoting 7AA Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure (3d.2005) § 1758.1

4

pp. 388–89).

5

The Ninth Circuit’s “[standing] law keys on the representative party, not all of the class

6

members, and has done so for many years.” Stearns v. Ticketmaster Corp., 655 F.3d 1013, 1021

7

(9th Cir. 2011) cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 1970 (U.S. 2012); see also Bates v. United Parcel Serv.,

8

Inc., 511 F.3d 974, 985 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (“[i]n a class action, standing is satisfied if at

9

least one named plaintiff meets the requirements”). This is true whether or not the products are
“substantially similar.” “Whether products are ‘sufficiently similar’ is an appropriate inquiry, but

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

it does not relate to standing: a plaintiff has no more standing to assert claims relating to a

12

‘similar’ product he did not buy than he does to assert claims relating to a ‘dissimilar’ product he

13

did not buy.” Clancy, 2013 WL 40816323, at * 5. (Moreover, even if this Court were to apply the

14

“substantial similarity” test, Plaintiffs would pass, since the products are similar varieties of the

15

same basic consumer offering, and the presence of a single additional ingredient at issue does not

16

render the products significantly dissimilar.)

17

Plaintiffs do not have standing to assert claims related to products they did not buy. But

18

they may seek to represent a class of people who purchased those products, as long as all

19

plaintiffs, named and absent, have standing in their own right, and as long as the prerequisites to

20

class certification are satisfied. Defendant does not dispute that Plaintiffs have standing to bring

21

claims related to the products they did purchase.

22

As for standing under the CLRA, while the cases cited by Defendants involved class

23

actions, the passages cited by Defendants in their motion were discussing whether a named

24

plaintiff had alleged reliance and materiality as to his or her own claims. Motion 4:25-5:14 (citing

25

Marolda v. Symantec Corp., 672 F. Supp. 2d 992, 1002 (N.D. Cal. 2009); Cattie v. Wal-Mart

26

Stores, Inc., 504 F. Supp. 2d 939, 946 (S.D. Cal. 2007); Caro v. Procter & Gamble Co., 18

27

Cal.App.4th 644, 668 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993)). Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiffs have CLRA

28

standing in their own right as to the products they purchased. Defendants have therefore failed to
3

1

meet their burden of showing that the CLRA’s standing requirements compel dismissal of the

2

CLRA claim asserted in the complaint.
The question of whether Plaintiffs may represent the proposed class will be addressed at

3
4

class certification.

5

IV.

CONCLUSION

6

Defendant’s motion to dismiss is DENIED.

7

The Court agrees with the parties that it would be appropriate to set deadlines in this case

8

after the Court rules on any motion for class certification. See Joint Case Management Statement

9

7:3-6, ECF No. 21. Accordingly, the case management conference currently scheduled for
November 21, 2013, is hereby VACATED. The Court hereby SETS February 3, 2014 as the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

deadline for Plaintiffs to file a motion for class certification. See id. at 5:18-21. The parties are

12

ORDERED to move the Court to schedule a case management conference in this case not more

13

than 30 days after the Court issues a class certification order.

14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 18, 2013
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4