Swearingen et al v. Late July Snacks LLC
Filing
116
ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Granting in Part and Denying In Part 101 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/5/2017)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
Plaintiffs,
8
LATE JULY SNACKS LLC,
Docket No. 101
Defendant.
11
12
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS
v.
9
10
Case No. 13-cv-04324-EMC
MARY SWEARINGEN, et al.,
I.
13
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs Mary Swearingen and Robert Figy filed this class action complaint against
14
15
Defendant Late July Snacks challenging Defendant‘s practice of labeling its products with the
16
term ―evaporated cane juice‖ (―ECJ‖) which Plaintiffs assert is a misleading term for sugar.
17
Currently pending before the Court is Defendant‘s motion to dismiss Plaintiff‘s Second Amended
18
Complaint. Docket No. 101 (―Motion‖). The Court DENIES the motion.
II.
19
20
21
A.
BACKGROUND
California and Federal Laws Regulating Food Labeling
Food manufacturers in California must comply with identical state and federal laws and
22
regulations that govern the labeling of food products. Foremost among these is the federal Food
23
Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq. (―FDCA‖), including its food labeling
24
regulations. 21 C.F.R. § 101 et seq. Pursuant to California Health & Safety Code § 110100,
25
California‘s Sherman Law adopts and incorporates the FDCA, stating that ―[a]ll food labeling
26
regulations and any amendments to those regulations adopted pursuant to the federal act, in effect
27
on January 1, 1993, or adopted on or after that date shall be the food labeling regulations of this
28
state.‖ Under the FDCA, food is ―misbranded‖ if ―its labeling is false or misleading in any
1
particular,‖ or if it does not contain certain information on its label or its labeling. 21 U.S.C. §
2
403(a).
The FDCA requires that ingredients be listed by their common or usual names, which are
3
4
the names established by common usage or by regulation. 21 C.F.R. § 104(a)(1); 21 C.F.R. §
5
102.5. The position of the Food and Drug Administration (―FDA‖) is that ―evaporated cane juice‖
6
is not the common or usual name of any sweetener (e.g., sugar). In 2009, the FDA issued
7
Guidance for Industry: Ingredients Declared As Evaporated Cane Juice, Draft Guidance (―Draft
8
Guidance‖), 2009 WL 3288507. According to the Draft Guidance, the term ECJ is ―false and
9
misleading‖ because it ―fails to reveal the basic nature of the food and its characterizing properties
U.S.C. 343(a)(1). The FDA did not initially finalize its draft guidance. On March 4, 2014, the
12
For the Northern District of California
(i.e., that the ingredients are sugars or syrups) as required by 21 C.F.R. § 102.5.‖ Id. at *3; 21
11
United States District Court
10
FDA reopened the comment period on the Draft Guidance with the intent to ―revise the draft
13
guidance, if appropriate, and issue it in final form.‖ See Docket No. 57 (Order on Supp. Briefing);
14
Docket No. 53-1 (Def. Second Request for Judicial Notice, Ex. A, FDA Notice to Reopen
15
Comment Period). On May 25, 2016, the FDA issued its final guidance on the use of the term
16
―evaporated cane juice,‖ titled ―Ingredients Declared as Evaporated Cane Juice: Guidance for
17
Industry‖ (―Final Guidance‖). Docket No. 92. The Final Guidance states that ―the common or
18
usual name for an ingredient labeled as ‗evaporated cane juice‘ includes the term ‗sugar‘ and does
19
not include the term ‗juice.‘‖ Id. at 7. This is because the ―basic nature‖ of ECJ is a ―sugar.‖ Id.
20
B.
Facts and Procedural History
21
Late July is a producer of retail food products. Docket No. 99 (Second Amended
22
Complaint (―SAC‖)) ¶ 21. During part of the period covered by the allegations in this case, Late
23
July manufactured, advertised, marketed, and sold products, such as Late July‘s Classic Saltines
24
Crackers, Classic Rich Crackers, Sea Salt By The Seashore Multigrain Snack Chips, and other
25
varieties of crackers and snack chips, labeled using the term ―evaporated cane juice‖ on their
26
ingredient lists to thousands of consumers nationwide, including many who reside in California.1
27
1
28
Late July no longer uses the term ―evaporated cane juice‖ on their product labels. Between
November 2013 and March 2014, Late July replaced the term ―evaporated cane juice‖ with the
2
1
SAC ¶¶ 2, 20.
Plaintiffs Mary Swearingen and Robert Figy, citizens of California, bought and purchased
2
3
Late July products including a variety of crackers and snack chips labeled with ECJ during the
4
Class Period, defined as September 18, 2009 to the present. SAC ¶¶ 2, 19. Plaintiffs are health-
5
conscious consumers who wish to avoid ―added sugars‖ in the products they purchase. Id. ¶ 72.
6
As such, they scanned the ingredient lists of the products at issue for forms of added sugar and
7
failed to recognize ―evaporated cane juice‖ as a form of sugar. Id. ¶ 73. They would not have
8
bought the products had they known that these products contained ―added sugar.‖ Id. ¶ 97.
Plaintiffs first filed a class action complaint for equitable and injunctive relief on
9
dismiss the First Amended Complaint, arguing, in part, that this Court should apply the doctrine of
12
For the Northern District of California
September 18, 2013. Docket No. 1 (Complaint). On February 3, 2014, Late July moved to
11
United States District Court
10
primary jurisdiction based on the FDA‘s ongoing regulatory proceeding concerning the use of ECJ
13
on food labels. Docket No. 32. Following the FDA‘s notice that it had reopened the comment
14
period on its draft guidance regarding ECJ, this Court denied in part the motion to dismiss and
15
stayed the action pursuant to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction on May 29, 2014. Docket No.
16
69.
17
On July 22, 2016, following the FDA‘s issuance of its Final Guidance, this Court lifted the
18
stay. Docket No. 98. Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint shortly thereafter. Docket
19
No. 99. Based on their allegations in the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs brought claims
20
for: (1) violations of California Business & Professions Code § 17200 (Unfair Competition Law or
21
UCL); (2) violations of California Business & Professions Code § 17500 (California False
22
Advertising Law or FAL); (3) violations of California Civil Code § 1750, et seq. (Consumer Legal
23
Remedies Act or CLRA); and (4) and unjust enrichment. SAC ¶¶ 151-212. Late July then filed
24
the instant motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. Docket No. 101.
25
26
27
28
term ―Evaporated Cane Sugar‖ on all products that had used the term ―evaporated cane juice.‖
Since this change, Late July has not manufactured a product with a label bearing the term
―evaporated cane juice.‖ Docket No. 106 (Decl. of Paul Drakeford).
3
III.
1
2
A.
DISCUSSION
Legal Standard
3
Late July seeks to dismiss Plaintiffs‘ Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a
4
claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Under Rule 12(b)(6), a party may
5
move to dismiss based on the failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. A motion
6
to dismiss based on Rule 12(b)(6) challenges the legal sufficiency of the claims alleged. See
7
Parks Sch. of Bus. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir. 1995). In considering such a
8
motion, a court must take all allegations of material fact as true and construe them in the light
9
most favorable to the nonmoving party, although ―conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted
1063, 1067 (9th Cir. 2009). While ―a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations . . . it
12
For the Northern District of California
inferences are insufficient to avoid a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal.‖ Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d
11
United States District Court
10
must plead ‗enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.‘‖ Id. ―A claim has
13
facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
14
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.‖ Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
15
556 U.S. 662 (2009); see also Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556. ―The plausibility
16
standard is not akin to a ‗probability requirement,‘ but it asks for more than sheer possibility that a
17
defendant acted unlawfully.‖ Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
18
Claims sounding in fraud or mistake are subject to the heightened pleading requirements of
19
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), which requires that a plaintiff alleging fraud ―must state with
20
particularity the circumstances constituting fraud.‖ Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b); see Kearns v. Ford Motor
21
Co., 567 F.3d 1120, 1124 (9th Cir. 2009). To satisfy the heightened standard under Rule 9(b), the
22
allegations must be ―specific enough to give defendants notice of the particular misconduct which
23
is alleged to constitute the fraud charged so that they can defend against the charge and not just
24
deny that they have done anything wrong.‖ Semegen v. Weidner, 780 F.2d 727, 731 (9th Cir.
25
1985). Thus, claims sounding in fraud must allege ―an account of the ‗time, place, and specific
26
content of the false representations as well as the identities of the parties to the
27
misrepresentations.‘‖ Swartz v. KPMG LLP, 476 F.3d 756, 764 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam)
28
(internal quotation marks omitted). The plaintiff must set forth ―what is false or misleading about
4
1
a statement, and why it is false.‖ In re Glenfed, Inc. Sec. Litig., 42 F.3d 1541, 1548 (9th Cir.1994)
2
(en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Ronconi v. Larkin, 253 F.3d 423,
3
429 n. 6 (9th Cir. 2001).
4
B.
Plaintiffs‘ UCL, CLRA, and FAL Claims
5
As noted above, Plaintiffs assert fraud-based claims under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA.
6
The UCL prohibits any ―unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.‖ Cal. Bus.
7
& Prof. Code § 17200. Because § 17200 is written in the disjunctive, it establishes ―three varieties
8
of unfair competition: practices which are unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent.‖ Cel-Tech
9
Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone, Co., 20 Cal. 4th 163, 180 (1999).
laws, treating them as unlawful practices that are independently actionable under the UCL. Id. at
12
For the Northern District of California
Practices are ―unlawful‖ when they violate other laws: § 17200 ―borrows‖ violations of other
11
United States District Court
10
179 [citations omitted]. Practices are ―unfair‖ when grounded in ―some legislatively declared
13
policy or proof of some actual or threatened effect on competition.‖ Id. at 186-87. ―Unfair,‖
14
under § 17200, refers to conduct that could violate an antitrust law, that does violate the policy or
15
spirit of such laws, or that could otherwise significantly threaten or harm competition. Id. at 187.
16
Practices are ―fraudulent‖ when ―members of the public are likely to be deceived‖; more
17
specifically, under the fraud prong, ―reliance [on the part of the plaintiff] is an essential element of
18
fraud.‖ Poldolsky v. First Healthcare Corp., 50 Cal. App. 4th 632, 647-48, as modified (Nov. 5,
19
1996), as modified (Nov. 20, 1996); In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal. 4th 298, 326 (2009).
20
The FAL prohibits any ―unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising.‖ Cal Bus. &
21
Prof. Code § 17500. The CLRA prohibits ―unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive
22
acts or practices.‖ Cal. Civ. Code § 1770.
23
Claims asserting fraud or deception under each of these three statutes are analyzed using
24
the ―same objective test, that is, whether ‗members of the public are likely to be deceived.‘‖ Tait
25
v. BSH Home Appliances Corp., 289 F.R.D. 466, 480 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (quoting In re Tobacco II
26
Cases, 46 Cal. 4th 298, 312 (2009)); see also Williams v. Gerber Prod. Co., 523 F.3d 934, 938
27
(9th Cir. 2008), opinion amended and superseded on denial of reh’g, 552 F.3d 934 (9th Cir.
28
2008). Fraud claims under each statute require ―proof of reliance on the alleged
5
1
misrepresentations or omissions‖ by the defendant. In re MyFordTouch Consumer Litigation, C-
2
13-3072-EMC, Docket No. 301 at 2 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (citing In re Tobacco II, 46 Cal. 4th at 328).
3
Plaintiffs allege that Late July‘s labeling of its products with the term ―evaporated cane
4
juice‖ is unlawful under the UCL. Motion ¶ 5. As noted above, the Sherman Law adopts and
5
incorporates the federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq. (―FDCA‖). 21
6
U.S.C. § 343(a). Under the FDCA, food is ―misbranded‖ if ―its labeling is false or misleading in
7
any particular,‖ or if it does not contain certain information on its label or its labeling. 21 U.S.C. §
8
403(a). So, under the Sherman Law, products are ―misbranded‖ when their ―labeling is false or
9
misleading.‖ See 21 U.S.C. § 343(a); 21 U.S.C. § 403(a). Plaintiffs contend that Late July‘s use
of the term ECJ was ―false and misleading‖ in light of the FDA‘s determination that ECJ is not the
11
common or usual name for sugar. SAC ¶ 50-51; Final Guidance at 6.
12
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
As an initial matter, the Court rejects Plaintiffs‘ claim that reliance need not be shown for
13
their claims arising under the ―unlawful‖ prong or any other prong of the UCL in this case. The
14
California Supreme Court has made it clear that, regardless of which prong of the UCL a plaintiff
15
asserts, when the basis of a plaintiff‘s UCL claim is a claim of misrepresentation, a plaintiff must
16
demonstrate actual reliance on the allegedly deceptive or misleading statements. Kwikset Corp. v.
17
Superior Court, 51 Cal. 4th 310, 326, 327 n.10 (2011).
18
Plaintiffs next argue that if it is required, reliance can be inferred because Late July‘s use
19
of ECJ constitutes a ―material misrepresentation.‖ Docket No. 107 (―Opposition‖) at 12:7-8.
20
Under California law, if the plaintiff fails to plead actual reliance, ―a presumption, or at least an
21
inference, of reliance arises wherever there is a showing that a misrepresentation was material.‖
22
Engalla v. Permanente Med. Group, Inc., 15 Cal. 4th 951, 977 (1997). A misrepresentation is
23
judged to be ―material‖ if ―a reasonable man would attach importance to its existence or
24
nonexistence in determining his choice of action in the transaction in question.‖ Engalla, 15 Cal
25
4th 951, 977 (1997).
26
California courts have adopted the ―reasonable consumer‖ standard for adjudicating the
27
materiality of an alleged misrepresentation. See In re Google AdWords Litig., 5:08–CV–3369
28
EJD, 2012 WL 28068 at *8 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2012) (citing Tobacco II, 46 Cal. 4th at 327); see
6
1
also Yung Kim v. Gen. Motors, LLC, 99 F. Supp. 3d 1096, 1107 (C.D. Cal. 2015) (explaining that
2
this standard applies to claims under the CLRA, FAL, and UCL). Under the ―reasonable
3
consumer‖ standard, a plaintiff must show that members of the public are likely to be deceived by
4
the business practice. Brazil v. Dole Food Co., 935 F. Supp. 2d 947, 962-63 (9th Cir. 2013).
5
―‗Likely to deceive‘ implies more than a mere possibility that the advertisement might
6
conceivably be misunderstood by some few consumers viewing it in an unreasonable manner.‖
7
Lavie v. Procter & Gamble Co., 105 Cal. App. 4th 496, 508 (2003). Rather, the reasonable
8
consumer standard adopts the perspective of the ―ordinary consumer acting reasonably under the
9
circumstances.‖ Id. at 512.
sophisticated consumer.‖ See Brod v. Sioux Honey Ass’n, Co-op, 927 F. Supp. 2d 811, 828 (N.D.
12
For the Northern District of California
This court has held that the ―reasonable consumer‖ is not necessarily a ―particularly
11
United States District Court
10
Cal. 2013). Instead, under the ―reasonable consumer‖ test, Plaintiffs must prove that an ordinary
13
consumer acting reasonably would attach importance to Defendant‘s ECJ statements, or,
14
alternatively, that Defendant knows or has reason to know that consumers are likely to regard the
15
label statements as important in making purchasing decisions. Tobacco II, 51 Cal. 4th at 333
16
(citing Engalla, 15 Cal. 4th 951, 977).
17
Plaintiffs allege that ―reasonable consumers would be, and were, misled in the same
18
manner as plaintiffs‖ by the use of ECJ and that ―reasonable consumers do not consider juice to be
19
a sugar or syrup or a refined sugar.‖ SAC ¶¶ 69, 107. The Court agrees. As Plaintiffs note, added
20
sugar is a known health risk that consumers are advised to avoid by the federal government, as
21
well as by scientific and educational institutions. SAC ¶ 74. The U.S. Department of Health and
22
Human Services and the U.S. Department of Agriculture‘s 2010 Dietary Guidelines clearly
23
distinguish between ―added sugars‖ and naturally occurring sugars, and state that consumers
24
should either eliminate or greatly limit their consumption of added sugars and foods containing
25
added sugars. SAC ¶ 75. Plaintiffs cite similar statements from the National Institute of Health,
26
the American Heart Association, the Harvard School of Public Health, and others. SAC ¶¶ 82-94.
27
28
Given this widespread recognition of the potential dangers of added sugar, a reasonable
consumer would likely be concerned with the addition of sugars to snack foods he or she was
7
1
considering purchasing, and would therefore attach importance to Late July‘s use of the term ECJ
2
which is used in lieu of the common term ―sugar.‖ Nor is Late July correct that health concerns
3
are unlikely given the generally unhealthful nature of snack foods. The market is replete with
4
healthier alternatives to even traditional snack foods, such as reduced sodium potato chips or
5
sugar-free candy. Consumers who purchase snack foods are not necessarily unconcerned with the
6
relative healthfulness of those foods. Here, a reasonable consumer might well consider a snack
7
food without added sugar to be a healthier alternative to snack foods with added sugar.
8
9
Late July further argues that even if Plaintiffs successfully plead that a reasonable
consumer would be concerned about ―added sugar,‖ Plaintiffs fail to allege facts that would
July argues that because Plaintiffs do not explain how a reasonable consumer would interpret the
12
For the Northern District of California
demonstrate that a reasonable consumer would be deceived by the use of ECJ. Reply at 6. Late
11
United States District Court
10
term ―ECJ,‖ their assertion that a reasonable consumer would be deceived is too conclusory to
13
state a claim. Reply at 7.
14
In fact, however, Plaintiffs do explain how they understood the term. Specifically, they
15
allege that ―at the time of purchase the believed ECJ was some type of ingredient that was
16
healthier than sugar due to its inclusion of the word juice and its omission of the words sugar or
17
syrup.‖ SAC ¶ 114. Moreover, this interpretation is consistent with the FDA‘s rationale for
18
determining that ECJ is a misleading term. As Plaintiffs point out, the FDA‘s determination was
19
based on the fact that the term ECJ ―falsely suggests that the sweeteners are juice,‖ SAC ¶ 105
20
(quoting Draft Guidance, 2009 WL 3288507 at *1), which is defined by regulation as ―aqueous
21
liquid expressed or extracted from one or more fruits or vegetables, purees of the edible portions
22
of one or more fruits or vegetables, or any concentrates of such liquid or puree,‖ 20 C.F.R. §
23
120.1(a). The Final Guidance further explains that it is the word ―juice‖ that makes the term ECJ
24
―confusingly similar to the more common use of the term ‗juice.‘‖ Final Guidance at 3. The FDA
25
points to a Department of Health and Human Services publication noting that ―‗cane juice‘ is one
26
of the ingredient names used to hide added sugar in beverages and recommends for health reasons
27
that fruit juice given to children be 100 percent fruit juice without any form of added sugar,
28
including ‗cane juice.‘‖ Final Guidance at 6. That the FDA guidance indicates that ―evaporated
8
1
cane juice‖ is for that reason a ―false and misleading‖ term implies that a reasonable consumer
2
would be confused by the term ECJ, and that that confusion could affect his or her purchasing
3
decisions.
Late July further argues that this Court should not presume reliance because it is
4
5
―implausible‖ that Plaintiffs could have relied on the use of the term ECJ. Courts cannot presume
6
reliance where reliance is impossible or implausible. See Pratt, 2015 WL 5770799 at *7; Caro, 18
7
Cal. App. 4th at 668. Specifically, Late July argues that Plaintiffs‘ allegation of reliance is
8
implausible in light of the fact that Plaintiffs allege in their complaint that proper, non-misleading
9
alternatives to ECJ include the term ―dried cane syrup.‖ Given the similarity between ―dried cane
allegations, that Plaintiffs could have been misled by the latter but nor the former. Motion at 12.
12
For the Northern District of California
syrup‖ and ―evaporated cane juice,‖ Late July contends, it is not plausible, absent further factual
11
United States District Court
10
In Kane v. Chobani, Inc. (Chobani III), 973 F. Supp. 2d 1120, 1134 (N.D. Cal. 2014), vacated on
13
other grounds, 645 F. App‘x 593 (9th Cir. 2016), this Court, considering a similar claim, found
14
that Plaintiffs‘ repeated acknowledgment that ―fruit juice concentrate‖ is a well-known added
15
sugar undermined their alleged reliance on the word ―juice‖ in ―evaporated cane juice‖ as denoting
16
something ―healthy.‖ Here, however Plaintiffs do not allege that that they would have recognized
17
―fruit juice concentrate‖ as a form of added sugar.2 And for the reasons discussed above, the term
18
they do allege that they would have recognized, ―dried cane syrup,‖ is meaningfully different from
19
―evaporated cane juice‖ because it omits the key confusing word ―juice.‖ Evaporated cane juice
20
can be construed as connoting something more healthful than ―dried cane syrup.‖
Plaintiffs‘ allegations thus meet the reasonable consumer standard. Plaintiffs have alleged
21
22
sufficient facts to show that a reasonable consumer would share Plaintiffs‘ concern about added
23
sugar and that a reasonable consumer would be misled by Defendant‘s misrepresentation. For that
24
reason, Late July‘s alleged misrepresentation was material, and Plaintiffs‘ reliance may be
25
presumed.
26
27
28
2
The SAC does quote various authorities that identify ―fruit juice concentrate‖ as a term denoting
added sugar, but it nowhere states that Plaintiffs in this case would have recognized it as such,
unlike the term ―dried cane syrup.‖
9
1
1.
Plaintiffs‘ Claims Meet the Heightened Pleading Standard Set by Rule 9(b)
2
Under Rule 9(b), claims sounding in fraud or mistake are subject to heightened pleading
3
requirements, which require plaintiffs alleging fraud to ―state with particularity the circumstances
4
constituting fraud.‖ Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b); see Kearns, 567 F.3d at 1124. Thus, claims sounding in
5
fraud must allege ―an account of the ‗time, place, and specific content of the false representations
6
as well as the identities of the parties to the misrepresentations.‘‖ Swartz, 476 F.3d at 764
7
(internal quotation marks omitted). The plaintiff must set forth ―what is false or misleading about
8
a statement, and why it is false.‖ In re Glenfed, Inc. Sec. Litig., 42 F.3d at 1548 (9th Cir. 1994).
9
This Court has found that Rule 9(b) applies to violations of the UCL under the ―unlawful‖ prong
Park v. Welch Foods, Inc., No. 5:12-CV-06449-PSG, 2013 WL 5405318, at *4–5 (N.D. Cal. Sept.
12
For the Northern District of California
where, as here, the crux of Plaintiffs‘ ―unlawful‖ UCL claim alleges fraudulent conduct. See, e.g.,
11
United States District Court
10
26, 2013). In Park, this Court found that Plaintiffs failed to meet Rule 9(b)‘s heightened pleading
13
requirements because they failed to allege ―when during the class period, where, how many, or
14
how many times‖ they purchased the products, whether they were personally exposed to the
15
alleged misrepresentations, and the content of these labels. 2013 WL 5405318, at *4–5.
16
In Astiana v. Ben & Jerry’s Homemade, Inc., No. C 10-4387 PJH, 2011 WL 2111796, at
17
*6 (N.D. Cal. May 26, 2011), this Court found that allegations similar to those in this case met
18
Rule 9(b)‘s heightened pleading requirements. In Astiana, the plaintiffs claimed that the
19
defendants‘ statements were allegedly misleading because they did not disclose that their products
20
contained synthetic ingredients. Id. The plaintiffs alleged that the ―who‖ was the defendants, the
21
―what‖ was the statement that product was ―all natural,‖ the ―when‖ was ―since at least 2006,‖ and
22
―throughout the class period,‖ and the ―where‖ was on the product labels. Id. This Court found
23
that these allegations sufficiently explained the ―who, what, when, where, and how‖ of the alleged
24
deception. Id. at 6. Similarly, in Jones v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 912 F. Supp. 2d 889 (N.D. Cal.
25
2012), where the plaintiffs alleged that ConAgra had deceptively labeled their products with
26
―100% natural‖ and ―organic,‖ among other claims about their products‘ health benefits, this
27
Court found that the plaintiffs‘ allegation that they had bought the products ―since 2008, and
28
throughout the Class Period,‖ was enough to put ConAgra on notice. Id. at 902.
10
1
Plaintiffs allegations are sufficient under this standard. Late July places great emphasis on
2
the fact that Plaintiffs do not allege how many times or where they purchased the products during
3
the class period, but these omitted details are unnecessary in light of the purposes behind Rule
4
9(b). The purposes of Rule 9(b) are to provide defendants with adequate notice to defend the
5
charges against them, to deter plaintiffs from filing complaints merely to enable discovery of
6
unknown wrongs, to prevent reputations from being harmed by baseless fraud charges, and to
7
prohibit plaintiffs from unilaterally imposing social and economic costs without factual basis.
8
Kearns, 567 F.3d at 1125 (citing In re Stacs Elecs. Sec. Litig., 89 F.3d at 1405). Alleging the
9
purchase of specific identified products with particular labels at issue ―throughout the Class
against it. Jones, 912 F. Supp. 2d at 902. Requiring Plaintiffs to specify e.g., the specific stores
12
For the Northern District of California
Period‖ (which commences in a given year) is sufficient to put a defendant on notice of the claims
11
United States District Court
10
they purchased Late July‘s products, or the exact dates of purchase, would not materially affect
13
Late July‘s ability to mount a defense.
14
In addition, Plaintiffs‘ allegations in this case are at least as strong as the allegations in
15
Astiana, which this court found satisfied Rule 9(b)‘s requirements. 2011 WL 2111796, at *6. In
16
Astiana, the ―who‖ was the defendants, the ―what‖ was the statement that product was ―all
17
natural,‖ the ―when‖ was ―since at least 2006‖ and ―throughout the class period,‖ and the ―where‖
18
was on the product labels. Id. The plaintiffs alleged that the statements were misleading because
19
the defendants did not disclose that the product contained synthetic ingredients. Id. This Court
20
found that the plaintiffs‘ allegations sufficiently explained the ―who, what, when, where, and how‖
21
of the alleged deception. Id. at 6. The same is true here.
22
Plaintiffs‘ allegations therefore satisfy the heightened pleading requirement of Rule 9(b).
23
2.
24
The FDCA expressly preempts efforts by states to impose certain food labeling
Preemption
25
requirements that go beyond those required by federal statute or regulation. Specifically, the Act
26
provides that ―no State or political subdivision of a State may directly or indirectly establish under
27
any authority . . . any requirement for nutrition labeling of food that is not identical to the
28
requirements‖ of various sections of the federal statute, including those governing nutritional
11
1
labeling (§ 343(q)) and mandating the use of the ―common or usual name‖ of ingredients (§
2
343(i)). 21 U.S.C. § 343-1(a). Late July argues that Plaintiffs‘ claims are preempted, for two
3
reasons. First, it contends that Plaintiffs are, in effect, attempting to impose a requirement to label
4
―added sugar,‖ contrary to the requirements of federal law. Second, it argues that both preemption
5
and due process concerns prohibit states from banning the use of the term ―ECJ‖ during the period
6
prior to the FDA‘s Final Guidance. The Court rejects each of these contentions.
7
With respect to the first argument, Late July appears to conflate two separate federal
they read the lists in an effort to determine whether the products at issue contained ―added sugar.‖
10
Late July points to the fact that 21 U.S.C. § 343(q) contains requirements regarding the provision
11
of information about the amount of sugars and other nutrients in food products, and that 21 C.F.R.
12
For the Northern District of California
requirements. Plaintiffs argue that the term ―ECJ‖ as used in ingredient lists misled them because
9
United States District Court
8
§ 101.60 contains detailed requirements governing the use of terms like ―sugar free.‖ See Motion
13
at 18-19. Because none of those requirements mandate differentiation between naturally occurring
14
sugar and added sugar, Late July argues, Plaintiffs‘ claims impermissibly seek to add an additional
15
requirement to indicate the presence of added sugar.
16
Late July mischaracterizes Plaintiffs‘ claims. Plaintiffs have nowhere alleged that Late
17
July was required explicitly to warn of added sugars, nor do they raise any claims pertaining to the
18
labeling of the amount of sugar in the nutrition information, as governed by § 343(q). Instead,
19
Plaintiffs focus on the separate statutory requirement, in both federal and state law, that the
20
ingredient list use the ―common or usual name‖ for the various ingredients listed therein. See 21
21
U.S.C. § 343(i); Cal. Health & Safety Code § 110725. ECJ, Plaintiffs contend, is not the common
22
or usual name for sugar, and Late July‘s labels thus violated both the federal requirement and the
23
identical state requirement. This claim does not seek enforcement of any requirement exceeding
24
those existing under federal law.
25
Second, Late July argues that because the FDA issued its Final Guidance clarifying that
26
ECJ is not the common or usual name for sugar only in May 2016, Plaintiffs cannot assert liability
27
for the use of that term prior to that date, because to do so would both impose a requirement
28
beyond the federal requirements, resulting in preemption, and would violate due process through
12
1
the retroactive application of an agency‘s interpretation of a regulation. See Motion at 20-22. In
2
support of this argument, Defendants rely on two recent district court cases, Wilson v. Frito-Lay N.
3
Am., Inc., 961 F. Supp. 2d 1134, 1147 (N.D. Cal. 2013) and Peterson v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., No.
4
13-CV-3158-L NLS, 2014 WL 3741853, at *4 (S.D. Cal. July 29, 2014). Wilson and Peterson
5
each concern the FDA‘s disclosure requirements for MSG. Plaintiffs in each case brought
6
mislabeling claims under California law with respect to assertions on various products that they
7
contained ―No MSG.‖ During the class periods, the FDA issued a statement clarifying that under
8
its rules, manufacturers were prohibited from using a ―No MSG‖ label on a product as long as any
9
of its ingredients contained MSG. Both courts found that Plaintiffs‘ claims were barred during the
emphasized that ―Before the FDA‘s November 2012 clarification, the only information about the
12
For the Northern District of California
period prior to the FDA statement. The focus in each decision was on due process. Wilson
11
United States District Court
10
FDA‘s MSG regulations that would have been available to Defendant were warning letters based
13
on specific factual circumstances and a proposed rule that was abandoned. Defendant was simply
14
not on notice during the Class Period that its labels did not comply with the FDA rule.‖ 961 F.
15
Supp. 2d. at 1147. By contrast, in the present case, Late July had clear notice at least as early as
16
2009 that the FDA considered the term ECJ to be false and misleading. Accordingly, the same
17
fairness and notice considerations are not implicated in the instant case.
18
Further, both Wilson and Peterson relied on a Ninth Circuit case, United States v. AMC
19
Entm’t, Inc., 549 F.3d 760, 770 (9th Cir. 2008), for the proposition that ―retroactive application of
20
a regulatory clarification contravenes due process.‖ Wilson, 961 F. Supp. 2d. at 1147. But AMC
21
involved an effort by the United States to impose retroactive liability for violating a regulation
22
after a clarification. By contrast, the present cases involve claims under state laws that merely
23
parallel the federal requirements. During the period before the FDA Guidance, the meaning of
24
―common or usual name‖ as applied to ECJ was, at most, ambiguous. Indeed, as noted above,
25
there were prior indications that the use of the term ECJ would be misleading under federal law.
26
During that period, a state law determination that ECJ was not the common or usual name for
27
sugar was not inconsistent with federal law; it was a reasonable interpretation of federal law. As
28
such, California law did not clearly impose additional requirements on top of federal law. The
13
1
FDA Guidance did not change federal law or reverse an earlier decision; rather, it clarified any
2
prior ambiguity about that federal law. Thus, finding of liability under California law would not
3
be a retroactive application of new law; rather, the FDA Guidance confirmed that the state law
4
labeling requirements were indeed consistent with federal law.
5
In sum, Plaintiffs claims under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA are not preempted by federal
6
law. Because Plaintiffs adequately allege reliance under heightened pleading standard of Rule
7
9(b), Late July‘s motion to dismiss those claims is DENIED.
8
C.
Plaintiffs‘ Claims for Unjust Enrichment
212. Late July points out that the Ninth Circuit has recognized that ―in California, there is not a
11
standalone cause of action for ‗unjust enrichment.‘‖ Astiana v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc., 783
12
For the Northern District of California
Plaintiffs assert a claim for unjust enrichment under the common law. See SAC ¶¶ 209-
10
United States District Court
9
F.3d 753, 762 (9th Cir. 2015). As the court in Asitana recognized, however, California courts
13
have stated that courts may construe an unjust enrichment claim ―as a quasi-contract claim seeking
14
restitution.‖ Rutherford Holdings, LLC v. Plaza Del Rey, 223 Cal. App. 4th 221, 231 (2014).
15
Thus, as the Ninth Circuit previously explained, in fact the ―Supreme Court of California and
16
California Courts of Appeal have recognized actions for relief under the equitable doctrine of
17
unjust enrichment.‖ Naoko Ohno v. Yuko Yasuma, 723 F.3d 984, 1006 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing
18
Ghirardo v. Antonioli, 14 Cal.4th 39 (1996)). ―The doctrine applies where plaintiffs, while having
19
no enforceable contract, nonetheless have conferred a benefit on defendant which defendant has
20
knowingly accepted under circumstances that make it inequitable for the defendant to retain the
21
benefit without paying for its value.‖ Hernandez v. Lopez, 180 Cal.App.4th 932, 938 (2009). For
22
example, Dunkin v. Boskey, 82 Cal. App. 4th 171, 197 (2000), the court held that where a
23
purported contract granting plaintiff paternity rights to a child conceived by artificial insemination,
24
the plaintiff could nonetheless recover damages equal to the amount of benefit he had conferred on
25
defendant in reliance of the agreement under an unjust enrichment theory. Alternatively, ―a party
26
to an express contract can assert a claim for restitution based on unjust enrichment by ‗alleg[ing in
27
that cause of action] that the express contract is void or was rescinded.‘‖ Rutherford Holdings,
28
223 Cal. App. 4th at 231 (quoting Lance Camper Manufacturing Corp. v. Republic Indemnity Co.
14
1
44 Cal.App.4th 194, 203 (1996)).
Late July is therefore incorrect that the unjust enrichment claim should be dismissed solely
2
3
on the ground that no such claim is cognizable under California law. And because Plaintiffs have
4
plausibly alleged that they were harmed by Late July‘s material misrepresentations, Plaintiffs can
5
state a claim under either theory of unjust enrichment. First, it would be ―inequitable for [Late
6
July] to retain the benefit‖ Plaintiffs conferred upon them in reliance upon Late July‘s
7
misrepresentation. Second, to the extent that Plaintiffs‘ purchase created a contractual relationship
8
between them and Late July, a fraudulent misrepresentation makes a contract voidable and/or
9
subject to rescission where the party seeking the remedy relied to his or her detriment on the
see also Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 164 cmt. c (1981) (―No legal effect flows from
12
For the Northern District of California
misrepresentation. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 164 (1981); Cal. Civ. Code § 1689;
11
United States District Court
10
either a non-fraudulent or a fraudulent misrepresentation unless it induces action by the recipient,
13
that is, unless he manifests his assent to the contract in reliance on it.‖). Because, as discussed
14
above, Plaintiffs adequately pled reliance on Late July‘s misrepresentation, they can also state a
15
claim for unjust enrichment. Late July‘s motion to dismiss this claim is therefore DENIED.
16
D.
Plaintiffs‘ Claims Outside of California
Despite asserting only claims under California law, Plaintiffs bring their claims ―on behalf
17
18
of a nationwide class of consumers who, within the Class Period, purchased Defendant‘s
19
Misbranded Food Products.‖ SAC ¶ 8. As Late July notes, the California Supreme Court has
20
recognized a general ―presumption against extraterritorial application‖ of state law, including the
21
UCL and CLRA. Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., 51 Cal. 4th 1191, 1207 (2011). Indeed, Sullivan
22
explained that ―[n]either the language of the UCL nor its legislative history provides any basis for
23
concluding the Legislature intended the UCL to operate extraterritorially.‖ Id.3
24
these statutes do ―not support claims by non-California residents where none of the alleged
25
misconduct or injuries occurred in California.‖ Churchill Vill., L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 169 F.
26
Supp. 2d 1119, 1126 (N.D. Cal. 2000). Late July thus argues that Plaintiffs have stated no valid
In particular,
27
3
28
Courts have repeatedly recognized that the same conclusion applies to the FAL and CLRA. See,
e.g., Wilson, 961 F. Supp. 2d at 1147.
15
1
claims with respect to out of state purchases, because they have alleged no nexus between any
2
such purchases and California—indeed, there are no allegations at all concerning any out of state
3
purchases. In the alternative, Late July argues that even if Plaintiffs were to assert claims under
4
other states‘ consumer protection laws—which they did not—they would have no standing
5
because they did not buy products in those states. Motion at 22 (citing Pardini v. Unilever, 2013
6
WL 3456872, at *9 (N.D. Cal. July 9, 2013).
Plaintiffs correctly point out that ―Class allegations typically are tested on a motion for
7
―[s]ometimes the issues are plain enough from the pleadings to determine whether the interests of
10
the absent parties are fairly encompassed within the named plaintiff‘s claim.‖ Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw.
11
v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 160 (1982). In such cases, ―some courts have struck class allegations
12
For the Northern District of California
class certification, not at the pleading stage.‖ Pardini, 961 F. Supp. 2d at 1061. However,
9
United States District Court
8
where it is clear from the pleadings that class claims cannot be maintained.‖ Pardini, 961 F. Supp.
13
2d at 1061. Here, because Plaintiffs have made no allegations that they purchased products
14
outside of California, and no allegations supporting a nexus between California law and any out of
15
state purchases, and in light of the presumption against extraterritorial application of the California
16
laws at issue, the Court will DISMISS their class allegations with leave to amend to correct these
17
deficiencies. See Pardini, 961 F. Supp. 2d at 1061 (noting in similar circumstances that ―[t]his is a
18
pleading defect amenable to determination prior to a motion for class certification‖ and dismissing
19
claims with leave to amend).
20
E.
21
Injunctive Relief
Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief requiring Defendants to cease and desist from selling its
22
allegedly mislabeled products. Late July contends that Plaintiffs lack standing to seek such relief.
23
Under Ninth Circuit case law, ―to establish standing to pursue injunctive relief . . . [a plaintiff]
24
must demonstrate a ‗real and immediate threat of repeated injury‘ in the future.‖ Chapman v. Pier
25
1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939, 946 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S.
26
488, 496 (1974)). Late July argues that Plaintiffs cannot make this showing for two reasons.
27
First, Plaintiffs repeatedly allege that they would not have purchased the products had they known
28
that ECJ means sugar; because they now know this, they cannot plausibly allege that they will be
16
1
similarly misled in the future. Second, Late July stopped using the term ECJ in 2014. See Motion
2
at 25. Accordingly, there is no possibility of future injury.
3
As Plaintiffs argue, however, in some analogous consumer cases courts have found
4
standing in similar circumstances on the ground that ―[t]o do otherwise would eviscerate the intent
5
of the California legislature in creating consumer protection statutes because it would effectively
6
bar any consumer who avoids the offending product from seeking injunctive relief.‖ Koehler v.
7
Litehouse, Inc., No. CV 12-04055 SI, 2012 WL 6217635, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2012); see
8
also Ries v. Arizona Beverages USA LLC, 287 F.R.D. 523, 533 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (―[W]ere the
9
Court to accept the suggestion that plaintiffs‘ mere recognition of the alleged deception operates to
defeat standing for an injunction, then injunctive relief would never be available in false
11
advertising cases, a wholly unrealistic result.‖).
Crucially, however, in nearly all cases finding standing to seek injunctive relief in similar
12
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
13
circumstances, the plaintiffs had specifically alleged that they intended to purchase defendants‘
14
products in the future.4 As such, their injury was ongoing; absent injunctive relief, ―they could not
15
rely on [defendants‘ label] representation[s] with any confidence.‖ Ries, 287 F.R.D. at 533.
16
Courts have noted that there are many cases ―where a consumer would still be interested in
17
purchasing the product if it were labeled properly – for example, if a food item accurately stated
18
its ingredients.‖ Mason v. Nature's Innovation, Inc., No. 12CV3019 BTM DHB, 2013 WL
19
1969957, at *4 (S.D. Cal. May 13, 2013); see also Jou v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., No. C-13-03075
20
JSC, 2013 WL 6491158, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2013). Accordingly, such consumers face
21
ongoing harm from mislabeling because they are unable to trust the representations made on the
22
offending products‘ labels. In keeping with this reasoning, a number of recent decisions have held
23
that ―to establish standing in a case such as this one, the plaintiff must allege that he intends to
24
purchase the products at issue in the future.‖ Swearingen v. Santa Cruz Nat., Inc., No. 13-CV-
25
26
4
27
28
Koehler, 2012 WL 6217635, supra, is a notable exception. However, the author of that opinion,
Judge Illston, later expressly repudiated its reasoning and held that ―to establish standing, plaintiff
must allege that he intends to purchase the products at issue in the future.‖ Rahman v. Mott's LLP,
No. CV 13-3482 SI, 2014 WL 325241, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2014).
17
1
04291-SI, 2016 WL 4382544, at *13 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2016).5
This line of cases is persuasive. As the Supreme Court has explained, one of the elements
2
3
constituting the ―irreducible constitutional minimum of standing‖ is the requirement that a
4
plaintiff have suffered (or will suffer) an ―injury in fact – an invasion of a legally protected interest
5
which is (a) concrete and particularized . . . and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or
6
hypothetical.‖ Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) (citations and internal
7
quotation marks omitted). ―In other words, for a federal court to have authority under the
8
Constitution to settle a dispute, the party before it must seek a remedy for a personal and tangible
9
harm.‖ Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652, 2661 (2013).
Where plaintiffs in a deceptive labeling case do not plan ever to purchase the offending
10
product in the future, they lack this sort of personal stake in seeking injunctive relief, as the
12
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
11
―alleged misrepresentations cannot do them any injury, and injunctive relief will not provide them
13
with any redress.‖ In re 5-hour ENERGY Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., No. MDL 13-2438 PSG
14
PLAX, 2014 WL 5311272, at *11 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2014). Indeed, as the Supreme Court has
15
specifically explained, ―[p]ast exposure to illegal conduct does not in itself show a present case or
16
controversy regarding injunctive relief . . . if unaccompanied by any continuing, present adverse
17
effects.‖ City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983) (quoting O’Shea v. Littleton, 414
18
U.S. 488 493 (1974)). Absent any intent to purchase Late July‘s products in the future, Plaintiffs
19
cannot complain of any ―continuing, present adverse effects.‖ But where plaintiffs do plan to
20
purchase defendants‘ products in the future, for the reasons discussed in Ries, an injunction can
21
redress the prospect of real injury. In such a case, a finding of standing would be consistent with
22
the familiar purposes of the doctrine, which include ―ensuring that litigants are truly adverse and
23
therefore likely to present the case effectively, ensuring that the people most directly concerned
24
are able to litigate the questions at issue, ensuring that a concrete case informs the court of the
25
consequences of its decisions, and preventing the anti-majoritarian federal judiciary from usurping
26
27
28
5
This precise issue is presented in two cases currently pending before the Ninth Circuit. See
Nancy Lanovaz v. Twinings North America, Inc., No. 16-16628, and Victor v. R.C. Bigelow, Inc.,
No. 16-16639.
18
1
the policy-making functions of the popularly elected branches.‖ William A. Fletcher, The
2
Structure of Standing, 98 Yale L.J. 221, 222 (1988) (citations omitted). This is especially true
3
where the plaintiff in incentivized to vigorously litigate the substantive claim because he/she has at
4
stake both a claim for monetary relief as well as injunctive relief to protect against future injury.
5
In this case, however, Plaintiffs make no allegation that they plan to purchase Late July‘s
purchased the products had they been aware that they contained added sugar. See SAC ¶¶ 34, 97-
8
98, 139. In light of these allegations, ―the Court has difficulty envisioning how plaintiffs could
9
amend their complaint to allege plausibly that, now knowing the products to contain added sugar,
10
they will purchase the products in the future.‖ Santa Cruz Nat., 2016 WL 4382544, at *13. But
11
because that Court cannot say that ―the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of
12
For the Northern District of California
products in the future. Indeed, to the contrary, they repeatedly state that they would not have
7
United States District Court
6
other facts,‖ Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000), the Court will allow leave to
13
amend. The Court therefore GRANTS Late July‘s motion with respect to Plaintiffs‘ request for
14
injunctive relief, and DISMISSES Plaintiffs claims with leave to amend.
IV.
15
16
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant‘s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs‘
17
UCL, FAL, and CLRA claims, and their claim for unjust enrichment, but GRANTS the motion as
18
to Plaintiffs‘ request for injunctive relief and Plaintiffs‘ claims based on out-of-state purchases; it
19
DISMISSES those claims with leave to amend within thirty (30) days.
20
This order disposes of Docket No. 101.
21
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
23
24
25
26
Dated: May 5, 2017
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge
27
28
19
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?