Garrison et al v. Whole Foods Market, Inc.

Filing 45

ORDER ALLOWING COMMON LAW CLAIMS TO PROCEED. Signed by Judge Vince Chhabria on 7/2/2014. (knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/2/2014)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

MARY GARRISON, et al.,

Case No. 13-cv-05222-VC

Plaintiffs,
5
v.

ORDER

6
7

WHOLE FOODS MARKET GROUP, INC.,
Defendant.

8
9
Plaintiffs Mary Garrison and Grace Garrison bring this putative class action against

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Defendant Whole Foods Market Group, Inc. ("Whole Foods"), alleging that several Whole Foods'

12

products were misleadingly "All Natural," when in fact they contain Sodium Acid Pyrophosphate

13

("SAPP"), a synthetic ingredient. In addition to state law claims, brought on behalf of a California

14

class, the plaintiffs seek to bring several common law claims on behalf of a nationwide class. In

15

connection with the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint—on which the Court already

16

ruled (see Docket No. 37)—the Court ordered supplemental briefing on whether the plaintiffs may

17

pursue their common law claims on behalf of a nationwide class.

18

After reviewing the parties' briefs, the Court has determined that, in light of the specific

19

factual allegations and legal theories present in this case, striking the class allegations at the

20

pleading stage would be premature. See, e.g., Doe v. SuccessfulMatch.com, No. 13-CV-03376-

21

LHK, 2014 WL 1494347, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2014) ("Absent the sort of detailed choice-of-

22

law analysis that guided the Ninth Circuit in Mazza, the Court declines to evaluate how

23

California's choice-of-law rules affect Plaintiffs' class claims at [the motion to dismiss stage]. ");

24

Brazil v. Dole Food Co., Inc., No. 12-CV-01831-LHK, 2013 WL 5312418, at *11 (N.D. Cal. Sept.

25

23, 2013) ("[T]he Court is unable to determine, at this stage, whether California's choice-of-law

26

rules apply to bar all, some, or none of [the plaintiffs'] class claims."); In re Clorox Consumer

27

Litig., 894 F. Supp. 2d 1224, 1237 (N.D. Cal. 2012) ("Since the parties have yet to develop a

28

factual record, it is unclear whether applying different state consumer protection statutes could

1

have a material impact on the viability of Plaintiffs' claims."); Donohue v. Apple, Inc., 871 F.

2

Supp. 2d 913, 919 (N.D. Cal. 2012) ("Although Mazza may influence the decision whether to

3

certify the proposed class and subclass, such a determination [at the pleading stage] is

4

premature.").

5

"Variations in state law do not necessarily preclude a [class] action." Hanlon v. Chrysler

6

Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1022 (9th Cir. 1998); see also, e.g., Steinberg v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.,

7

224 F.R.D. 67, 79 (E.D.N.Y. 2004) ("The spectre of having to apply different substantive law does

8

not warrant refusing to certify a class on common law claims." (alteration omitted)). The issue is

9

largely one of manageability—at the class certification stage, the plaintiffs will "bear[ ] the burden
of demonstrating a suitable and realistic plan for trial of the class claims." Zinser v. Accufix

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180, 1189 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted).

12

Although the Court could determine now, as a matter of law, whether the laws of the fifty states

13

conflict, there is not yet sufficient information to determine which states' laws will be at issue and

14

which conflicts might be material to this litigation. The plaintiffs do not even know yet in which

15

states (besides California) the products at issue were sold. It is possible that, at the class

16

certification stage, the plaintiffs will be able to define the class such that any differences in state

17

law are immaterial. Or they may be able to identify a manageable number of subclasses of

18

residents of states with laws that do not materially differ. In any case, at this stage, the plaintiffs

19

have plausibly alleged common law claims on behalf of a nationwide class, and it is plausible that

20

they could propose a manageable way of proceeding on these claims. See, e.g., Forcellati v.

21

Hyland's, Inc., 876 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1159-60 (C.D. Cal. 2012).

22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
23
Dated: July 2, 2014
24
25
26

______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge

27
28
2