Dana Rhinerson, et al -v- Van's International Foods, Inc.

Filing 50

ORDER by Judge Vince Chhabria granting in part and denying in part 19 Motion to Dismiss (knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/2/2014)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

DANA RHINERSON, et al.,

Case No. 13-cv-05923-VC

Plaintiffs,
5
v.

ORDER

6
7

VAN'S INTERNATIONAL FOODS, INC.,

Re: Dkt. No. 19

Defendant.
8
9
Plaintiffs Dana Rhinerson and Aidin Moradi bring this putative class action against

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Defendant Van's International Foods, Inc. ("Vans") alleging that several Vans food products were

12

misleadingly labeled "all natural" or "totally natural" when in fact they contain Sodium Acid

13

Pyrophosphate ("SAPP"), a synthetic ingredient. The plaintiffs bring several common law claims

14

(on behalf of a nationwide class) as well as claims under California consumer protection statutes

15

(on behalf of a California class). On February 21, 2014, Vans moved to dismiss the complaint.

16

(Docket No. 19).

17

In connection with this motion, the Court ordered supplemental briefing on whether the

18

plaintiffs may pursue their common law claims on behalf of a nationwide class. The Court has

19

determined that, in light of the specific factual allegations and legal theories present in this case,

20

striking the class allegations at the pleading stage would be premature. See, e.g., Doe v.

21

SuccessfulMatch.com, No. 13-CV-03376-LHK, 2014 WL 1494347, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16,

22

2014) ("Absent the sort of detailed choice-of-law analysis that guided the Ninth Circuit in Mazza,

23

the Court declines to evaluate how California's choice-of-law rules affect Plaintiffs' class claims at

24

[the motion to dismiss stage]. "); Brazil v. Dole Food Co., Inc., No. 12-CV-01831-LHK, 2013 WL

25

5312418, at *11 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2013) ("[T]he Court is unable to determine, at this stage,

26

whether California's choice-of-law rules apply to bar all, some, or none of [the plaintiffs'] class

27

claims."); In re Clorox Consumer Litig., 894 F. Supp. 2d 1224, 1237 (N.D. Cal. 2012) ("Since the

28

parties have yet to develop a factual record, it is unclear whether applying different state consumer

1

protection statutes could have a material impact on the viability of Plaintiffs' claims."); Donohue v.

2

Apple, Inc., 871 F. Supp. 2d 913, 919 (N.D. Cal. 2012) ("Although Mazza may influence the

3

decision whether to certify the proposed class and subclass, such a determination [at the pleading

4

stage] is 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

With respect to the issues raised in Vans' motion to dismiss, they are almost identical to

23

those raised by the defendant in a similar case, Garrison v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., No.

24

13-cv-5222. Accordingly, the reasoning in the Court's June 2, 2014 order in that case largely

25

applies here. (See No. 13-cv-5222, Dkt No. 37).

26

The only issue not addressed in the Garrison order is Vans' argument that the breach of

27

contract claim fails because the plaintiffs lack privity with Vans. The parties agree that ordinarily,

28

a breach of contract claim requires privity. (See Mot. Dismiss 18-19; Opp'n 11). And the
2

1

plaintiffs do not argue that they are, in fact, in privity with Vans. (See Opp'n 11-12). Rather, they

2

contend their claim falls within the exceptions to the privity requirement for assertions on labels

3

and advertisements and for foodstuffs. (See id.). These exceptions, however, apply to breach of

4

warranty claims, not breach of contract claims. See Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 534 F.3d

5

1017, 1023 (9th Cir. 2008). The plaintiffs cite—and the Court has found—no authority for the

6

proposition that a plaintiff may bring a breach of contract claim without privity. The breach of

7

contract claim is therefore dismissed with prejudice.

8
9

In addition, for the reasons articulated in the Garrison order, the plaintiffs' unjust
enrichment claim is dismissed with prejudice. To the extent the plaintiffs seek to bring claims
based on representations not contained on the product labels themselves, Vans' motion to dismiss

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

is granted with leave to amend. In all other respects, the motion to dismiss is denied.

12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
Dated: July 2, 2014
14
15
16

______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3