Coe et al v. General Mills, Inc.

Filing 39

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 22 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Amended complaint due by 8/24/2016. Joint Case Management Statement due by 9/12/2016. Initial Case Management Conference set for 9/19/2016 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 12, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 08/10/16. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/10/2016)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

NANCY COE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

6
7
8
9

v.
GENERAL MILLS, INC.,

Case No. 15-cv-05112-TEH
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendant.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

This matter came before the Court on July 18, 2016, on Defendant General Mills,

12

Inc.’s motion to dismiss. After carefully considering the parties’ written and oral

13

arguments, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion for the

14

reasons discussed below.

15
16
17

BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Nancy Coe, Tori Castro, and Pamela Mizzi filed this putative class action

18

against Defendant General Mills, Inc. to challenge the labeling and advertising of its

19

Cheerios Protein product. They contend that the name “Cheerios Protein” is misleading

20

because it implies that the product is essentially the same as Cheerios, only with added

21

protein. While Plaintiffs acknowledge that Cheerios Protein does have more protein than

22

regular Cheerios (7 grams per serving versus 3 grams per serving), they contend that the

23

amount of additional protein is not material, particularly considering the larger serving size

24

and calories per serving of Cheerios Protein. Based on the Nutrition Facts panels of both

25

products – the accuracy of which Plaintiffs do not challenge – Plaintiffs calculate that 200

26

calories of Cheerios contains 6 grams of protein, whereas 200 grams of Cheerios Protein

27

contains 6.4 or 6.7 grams of protein, depending on the flavor (Oats & Honey or Cinnamon

28

Almond, respectively).

1

In addition, Plaintiffs argue that the “Cheerios Protein” name is misleading because

2

it says nothing about added sugar. Whereas a single serving of Cheerios contains only 1

3

gram of sugar, a single serving of Cheerios Protein contains 16 or 17 grams of sugar

4

(Cinnamon Almond or Oats & Honey, respectively).

5

Plaintiffs also challenge certain statements on the label as false or misleading: that

6

the product provides “a great start to your day,” enables you to “start your school day

7

right,” and allows you to “kick-start your day.” Compl. ¶ 40. Similarly, Plaintiffs

8

challenge as false or misleading a “Fuel Up” advertisement, viewable at

9

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWFfBSeuTiI, in which a NASCAR driver picks up a
child and races him to school, where “he is fed Cheerios Protein pit-stop style.” Id. ¶ 53.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Plaintiffs seek relief for both California and New York classes of consumers. The

12

first four claims are asserted under California laws that prohibit “unlawful, unfair or

13

fraudulent” business acts or practices, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq. (“Unfair

14

Competition Law” or “UCL”); false or misleading advertising, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code

15

§§ 17500 et seq.; and deceptive business practices, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750 et seq.

16

(“Consumers Legal Remedies Act”). The remaining two claims are asserted under New

17

York laws that prohibit deceptive acts or practices and false advertising. N.Y. Gen. Bus.

18

Law §§ 349-50. Defendant seeks dismissal of the entire complaint.

19
20
21

LEGAL STANDARD
Dismissal is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) when a

22

plaintiff’s allegations fail “to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” To survive a

23

motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is

24

plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).

25

Plausibility does not equate to probability, but it requires “more than a sheer possibility

26

that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

27

“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the

28

court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
2

1

alleged.” Id. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere

2

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id.
In ruling on a motion to dismiss, courts must “accept all material allegations of fact

3
4

as true and construe the complaint in a light most favorable to the non-moving party.”

5

Vasquez v. Los Angeles County, 487 F.3d 1246, 1249 (9th Cir. 2007). However, courts are

6

not “bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Iqbal, 556

7

U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

DISCUSSION
I.

Preemption
Defendant first argues that Plaintiffs’ claims are expressly preempted by the federal

12

Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (“NLEA” or “Act”). The NLEA “established

13

uniform food labeling requirements, including the familiar and ubiquitous Nutrition Facts

14

Panel found on most food packages.” Lilly v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 743 F.3d 662, 664

15

(9th Cir. 2014). The Act’s express preemption clause provides that “no State or political

16

subdivision of a State may directly or indirectly establish . . . any requirement for the

17

labeling of food . . . that is not identical to” certain federal requirements, including

18

nutrition information claims under 21 U.S.C. § 343(q) and nutrition levels and health-

19

related claims under 21 U.S.C. § 343(r). 21 U.S.C. § 343-1(a).

20

Plaintiffs contend that their claims are not preempted because they “are identical to

21

the federal labeling requirements.” Reid v. Johnson & Johnson, 780 F.3d 952, 959 (9th

22

Cir. 2015). Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that the labeling of Cheerios Protein violates

23

two federal regulations – 21 C.F.R. § 101.18(b) and 21 C.F.R. § 102.5(c) – as well as 21

24

U.S.C. § 343(a)(1), which provides that a food is “misbranded” if its “labeling is false or

25

misleading in any particular.” Compl. ¶ 86.1 The Court considers each contention in turn.

26
1

27
28

The complaint refers generally to 21 U.S.C. § 343, but the quoted language is
from § 343(a)(1). The complaint also cites 21 U.S.C. § 321(n), but that section only
describes what must be considered to determine whether a label is “false or misleading,” as
prohibited by § 343(a)(1) and other statutes.
3

1

A.

21 C.F.R. § 101.18(b)

2

First, 21 C.F.R. § 101.18(b) provides that “the labeling of a food which contains

3

two or more ingredients may be misleading by reason (among other reasons) of the

4

designation of such food in such labeling by a name which includes or suggests the name

5

of one or more but not all such ingredients, even though the names of all such ingredients

6

are stated elsewhere in the labeling.” Plaintiffs argue that the name “Cheerios Protein”

7

violates this regulation because it includes two ingredients, Cheerios and protein, but

8

excludes sugar. They analogize this case to a claim that calling a product “vitaminwater”

9

is misleading because it implies that the product contains only two ingredients, vitamins
and water, when it also contained sugar. Such a claim was found to be valid and not

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

preempted in Ackerman v. Coca-Cola Co., No. CV-09-0395 (JG)(RML), 2010 WL

12

2925955, at *12-13 (E.D.N.Y. July 21, 2010).

13

However, Plaintiffs cite no authority to support the proposition that Cheerios is an

14

“ingredient,” and the Court finds none. At oral argument, Plaintiffs’ counsel offered that

15

“we just have to rely on common sense,” and that Cheerios should be considered an

16

“ingredient” under the regulations because it is listed as an “ingredient” in recipes

17

contained on Defendant’s website. Tr. at 21:11-22. Putting aside the question of whether

18

such evidence can even be considered at this stage of the proceedings, the Court is not

19

persuaded by this analogy. Whether something is an “ingredient” for purposes of a recipe

20

is a separate question from whether it is an “ingredient” in the context of food labeling.

21

Adopting Plaintiffs’ position would lead to the absurd result that a regular box of Cheerios

22

would only need to list “Cheerios” in its list of ingredients. In the absence of any contrary

23

authority, the Court therefore concludes that Cheerios is not an “ingredient,” and the name

24

“Cheerios Protein” is not regulated by 21 C.F.R. § 101.18(b).

25

B.

21 C.F.R. § 102.5(c)

26

Second, 21 C.F.R. § 102.5(c) provides that “[t]he common or usual name of a food

27

shall include a statement of the presence or absence of any characterizing ingredient(s) or

28

component(s) . . . when the presence or absence of such ingredient(s) or component(s) in
4

1

the food has a material bearing on price or consumer acceptance.” Plaintiffs argue that

2

“Cheerios Protein” is the product’s common or usual name, and that it violates § 102.5(c)

3

because it fails to indicate any sugar, which would be material to a consumer’s acceptance

4

of the product. Defendant, on the other hand, contends that the common or usual name of

5

the products at issue are “Sweetened Whole Grain Oat Cereal with Crunchy Oat Granola

6

Clusters and Real Honey” and “Sweetened Whole Grain Corn and Oat Cereal with

7

Crunchy Almond Granola Clusters and Real Cinnamon,” both of which appear on the front

8

of the box in the lower left corner, in smaller type than “Cheerios Protein.”

9

Neither party has cited any cases where a court has considered whether a brand
name is or can be a product’s common or usual name. However, it would be reasonable to

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

infer from regulations defining specific common or usual names that the term “common or

12

usual name” is meant to refer to a generic descriptive term rather than a brand name. E.g.,

13

21 C.F.R. § 102.23 (“peanut spread”); 21 C.F.R. § 102.26 (“frozen chicken dinner” or

14

“frozen heat and serve beef dinner”); 21 C.F.R. § 102.41 (“potato chips made from dried

15

potatoes”). Declining to find that the “Cheerios Protein” brand name is also its common or

16

usual name would also comport with the requirements that a common or usual name must

17

“accurately identify or describe, in as simple and direct terms as possible, the basic nature

18

of the food or its characterizing properties or ingredients,” and must be “uniform among all

19

identical or similar products.” 21 C.F.R. § 102.5(a). It would be nonsensical, for example,

20

to refer to all whole grain oat cereals, which are similar to Cheerios, as “Cheerios.”

21

Plaintiffs argue that their position is supported by 21 C.F.R. § 101.3(a), which

22

requires the “principal display panel of a food in package form [to] bear as one of its

23

principal features a statement of the identity of the commodity.” This argument is

24

unconvincing. First, the “statement of identity” is not necessarily the common or usual

25

name; it may be the “common or usual name of the food; or, in the absence thereof . . . [a]n

26

appropriately descriptive term, or when the nature of the food is obvious, a fanciful name

27

commonly used by the public for such food.” 21 C.F.R. § 101.3(b)(2)-(3). Second, the

28

regulation does not purport to define how to determine a product’s common or usual name.
5

1

As the FDA warning letter cited by Plaintiffs demonstrates, placing words in a larger or

2

more prominent type does not make those words the product’s statement of identity. FDA

3

Warning Letter to Cytosport, Inc. (June 29, 2011), http://www.fda.gov/iceci/

4

enforcementactions/warningletters/2011/ucm261684.htm (noting that “[t]he actual

5

statements of identity, ‘Protein Nutrition Shake’ and ‘Nutritional Shake’ are in

6

significantly smaller and less prominent type than the words ‘MUSCLE MILK’ on these

7

product labels”). The Court therefore concludes that 21 C.F.R. § 102.5(c) does not apply

8

to “Cheerios Protein” because that is not the product’s common or usual name.

9
10

C.

21 U.S.C. § 343(a)(1)

Plaintiffs’ final argument, however, has merit. Under 21 U.S.C. § 343(a)(1), a food

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

is “misbranded” if its “labeling is false or misleading in any particular.”2 This catch-all

12

prohibition against false or misleading labeling is:

13

16

a more general obligation to refrain from deceptive conduct.
By its terms, the express preemption provision does not bar the
enforcement of state laws imposing requirements of that type –
that is, a state-law mirror of the requirement in § 343(a)(1)
addressing false or misleading labels. Fairly but narrowly
construed, § 343-1(a) does not prohibit Plaintiffs from
asserting a claim premised on a violation of § 343(a)(1).

17

Reynolds v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 4:14CV381-MW/CAS, 2015 WL 1879615, at *12

18

(N.D. Fla. Apr. 23, 2015). However, “[t]he ability to bring such a claim is not unlimited,”

19

id., and Defendant correctly argues that a claim under § 343(a)(1) would be barred if the

20

challenged aspects of the label complied with a specific federal regulation. “[I]f there is

21

compliance with a specific requirement, then that aspect is not false or misleading under

22

the catch-all provision, § 343(a)(1).” Id.; see also Henry v. Gerber Prods. Co., No. 3:15-

14
15

23
24
25
26
27
28

2

See also 21 U.S.C. § 321(n) (“If an article is alleged to be misbranded because the
labeling or advertising is misleading, then in determining whether the labeling or
advertising is misleading there shall be taken into account (among other things) not only
representations made or suggested by statement, word, design, device, or any combination
thereof, but also the extent to which the labeling or advertising fails to reveal facts material
in the light of such representations or material with respect to consequences which may
result from the use of the article to which the labeling or advertising relates under the
conditions of use prescribed in the labeling or advertising thereof or under such conditions
of use as are customary or usual.”).
6

1

cv-02201-HZ, 2016 WL 1589900, at *7-8 (D. Or. Apr. 18, 2016) (holding that a plaintiff

2

could not bring a claim based on § 343(a) where she conceded that the labels “are

3

‘technically accurate’ and comply with ‘the regulations’ disclosure requirements.’”

4

(citations omitted)). That is, a statement cannot be “false or misleading” under § 343(a)

5

“where challenged conduct is expressly required or permitted by FDA regulations.”

6

Reynolds, 2015 WL 1879615, at *12.

7

Instead, “Congress presumably chose to include § 343(a) in the statutory scheme in

8

order to allow the FDA to target specific false or misleading labels without having

9

promulgated regulations that address the specific false or misleading aspect of the
particular label.” Zupnik v. Tropicana Products, Inc., No. CV 09-6130 DSF RZX, 2010

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

WL 6090604, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2010). “Because Congress has also allowed states,

12

at the very least, to pass statutes identical to § 343(a), a private party equipped with a

13

private right of action under state law is able to sue to enforce a state statute identical to

14

§ 343(a), just as the FDA would be able to sue to enforce § 343(a) itself.” Id.

15

In this case, “Plaintiffs do not challenge any statements within the Nutrition Facts

16

box. Nor do Plaintiffs challenge the method Defendant uses to calculate the amount and

17

percentage of protein. Nor do Plaintiffs challenge the quality of protein in Cheerios

18

Protein or whether it is a ‘good source’ within the federal regulatory definition.” Opp’n

19

at 5. These claims would be governed by specific federal regulations and therefore could

20

not form the basis of a claim under § 343(a).

21

Defendant argues that the “Cheerios Protein” name is also governed by a specific

22

federal regulation and, in particular, is a permissible implied nutrient content claim under

23

21 C.F.R. § 101.13(i)(1). That regulation provides that, except as provided in sections not

24

applicable here:

25
26
27
28

the label or labeling of a product may contain a statement about
the amount or percentage of a nutrient if: (1) The use of the
statement on the food implicitly characterizes the level of the
nutrient in the food and is consistent with a definition for a
claim, as provided in subpart D of this part, for the nutrient that
the label addresses. Such a claim might be, “less than 3 g of
fat per serving[.]”
7

1

This Court disagrees. “Cheerios Protein” is not similar to a claim of “less than 3 g of fat

2

per serving” because it does not imply that the product contains any certain “amount or

3

percentage of a nutrient.” Moreover, although Defendant characterizes the name

4

“Cheerios Protein” as a “good source claim,” Tr. at 15:18-19, the regulation governing

5

such claims applies only to the use of the words “good source,” “contains,” or “provides,”

6

21 C.F.R. § 101.54(c) – none of which is present here. The Court therefore finds that

7

§ 101.13(i)(1) does not regulate the name “Cheerios Protein.”

8

As discussed above, the Court also disagrees with Plaintiffs and concludes that 21

9

C.F.R. §§ 101.18(b) and 102.5(c) do not govern the “Cheerios Protein” name. Thus, the
parties have presented no regulation that governs Plaintiffs’ challenges in this case, and the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Court finds that Plaintiffs’ claims fall under the catch-all provision of the NLEA, 21

12

U.S.C. § 343(a)(1). The claims are not preempted, and Defendant’s motion to dismiss on

13

that basis is DENIED.

14
15
16

II.

Reasonable Consumer Standard
Defendant next moves to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims on grounds that the Cheerios

17

Protein labels are not likely to deceive a reasonable consumer. The parties correctly agree

18

that this is the governing standard for both Plaintiffs’ California and New York claims.

19

Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 934, 938 (9th Cir. 2008) (California claims);

20

Cohen v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., 498 F.3d 111, 126 (2d Cir. 2007) (New York claims).

21

Granting a motion to dismiss is appropriate only in “the rare situation” where “the

22

advertisement itself [makes] it impossible for the plaintiff to prove that a reasonable

23

consumer was likely to be deceived.” Williams, 552 F.3d at 939. This is not such a

24

situation. Although Cheerios Protein’s sugar content and the word “sweetened” are both

25

reflected on the front of the box, they are less prominent and in a smaller font than other

26

components of the label, including the “Cheerios Protein” name and the number of grams

27

of protein in each serving. Likewise, even if sugar content is accurately displayed in the

28

Nutrition Facts box, that does not mean that the labeling as a whole cannot be misleading.
8

1

The Ninth Circuit has explained that reasonable consumers should not “be expected to

2

look beyond misleading representations on the front of the box to discover the truth from

3

the ingredient list in small print on the side of the box.” Id. While the Court is skeptical

4

that a reasonable consumer would be misled by the labeling of Cheerios Protein, it cannot

5

say, construing the allegations in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs, that it would be

6

impossible for Plaintiffs “to prove that a reasonable consumer was likely to be deceived.”

7

Id. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to dismiss on this basis is DENIED.

8
9
10

III.

“Great Start” and “Fuel Up” Claims
Next, Defendants seek dismissal of two sets of Plaintiffs’ claims on grounds that

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

they are non-actionable puffery: first, Plaintiffs’ claims based on statements on the

12

package that say, “a great start to your day,” “start your school day right,” and “kick-start

13

your day,” with “appealing photographic images depicting healthy and successful kids and

14

parents,” Compl. ¶¶ 40-41 (“Great Start” claims); and, second, “Fuel Up” advertising,

15

including an ad in which “celebrity NASCAR driver Austin Dillon and team, swathed in

16

Cheerios Protein garb, strap a child into a Cheerios Protein stock car, race him to school

17

where he is fed Cheerios Protein pit-stop style, and then leave him ‘fueled up’ and ready to

18

learn,” id. ¶ 53 (“Fuel Up” claims).

19

Statements are non-actionable puffery if they involve “general assertions of

20

superiority rather than factual misrepresentations.” Cook, Perkiss & Liehe, Inc. v. N. Cal.

21

Collection Serv., Inc., 911 F.2d 242, 246 (9th Cir. 1990). The Ninth Circuit has concluded

22

that a claim that a product “is ‘nutritious,’ were it standing on its own, could arguably

23

constitute puffery, since nutritiousness can be difficult to measure concretely.” Williams,

24

552 F.3d at 939 n.3. The court nonetheless “decline[d] to give [the defendant] the benefit

25

of the doubt by dismissing the statement as puffery” because the “statement certainly

26

contributes . . . to the deceptive context of the packaging as a whole.” Id. Likewise,

27

another judge in this district ruled that the term “wholesome” “arguably could mislead a

28

reasonable consumer,” and therefore “cannot be deemed to constitute non-actionable
9

1

puffery” on a motion to dismiss. Chacanaca v. Quaker Oats Co., 752 F. Supp. 2d 1111,

2

1126 (N.D. Cal. 2010). The same was true of a “smart choices made easy” decal and

3

“photographic depictions of oats, nuts, and children in soccer uniforms.” Id. (“[A]

4

determination of whether or not the decal is non-actionable owing to its status as either

5

true or harmless puffery cannot be determined on this motion [to dismiss]. . . . Taking

6

plaintiffs’ allegation that trans fats are not safe in any amount as true, and crediting the

7

inference plaintiffs draw from the box (that is, that active, healthy children are fueled with

8

Chewy Bars), the Court cannot resolve at this juncture the issue of whether or not a

9

reasonable consumer might be duped by these depictions.”).

10

The Court finds these cases to be persuasive. Plaintiffs allege that Cheerios Protein

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

contains more than the amount of sugar per serving recommended for children’s

12

consumption by the Federal Trade Commission, Centers for Disease Control and

13

Prevention, and the United States Department of Agriculture, Compl. ¶¶ 45-46; that

14

“added sugar in processed foods has substantially contributed” to a host of health

15

problems, id. ¶ 49; and that the “implied claims of healthfulness on the Cheerios protein

16

label” are therefore misleading, id. ¶ 51. The statements challenged in the “Great Start”

17

claims arguably contribute to the alleged “deceptive context of the packaging as a whole,”

18

Williams, 552 F.3d at 939 n.3, and the Court does not find, at this stage of the proceedings,

19

that they are so general as to be unable to mislead a reasonable consumer. The motion to

20

dismiss these claims as mere puffery is therefore DENIED.

21

However, the Court finds the “Fuel Up” claims to be too general to constitute an

22

actionable statement. The advertisement’s claims that eating Cheerios Protein is akin to

23

“fueling up” a race car driver are “so exaggerated as to preclude reliance by consumers,”

24

Cook, Perkiss & Liehe, Inc., 911 F.2d at 246 (citation omitted), and “a reasonable

25

consumer would not interpret the statement as a reliably factual claim.” Coastal Abstract

26

Serv., Inc. v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 173 F.3d 725, 731 (9th Cir. 1999). These claims are

27

also subject to dismissal because Plaintiffs did not plead reliance on the “Fuel Up”

28

advertisement – an argument raised by Defendant and ignored by Plaintiffs in their
10

1

opposition. See Wilson v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., 961 F. Supp. 2d 1134, 1143 (N.D. Cal.

2

2013) (“California law requires UCL plaintiffs to plead injury and reliance.”). The Court

3

therefore GRANTS the motion to dismiss the “Fuel Up” claims without leave to amend.

4
5
6

IV.

Injunctive Relief
Finally, Defendant argues – in a footnote – that Plaintiffs lack standing to seek

7

injunctive relief because they “have not alleged anywhere in the Complaint that they

8

intend to purchase Cheerios Protein in the future.” Mot. at 24 n.10.3 “A footnote is the

9

wrong place for substantive arguments on the merits of a motion.” First Advantage
Background Servs. Corp. v. Private Eyes, Inc., 569 F. Supp. 2d 929, 935 (N.D. Cal. 2008).

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Nonetheless, the Court considers this argument since Plaintiffs had a fair opportunity to

12

respond and did, in fact, address the merits in their opposition.

13

This issue was recently addressed in detail by another court in this district, and the

14

Court finds that decision persuasive. See Anderson v. Seaworld Parks & Entm’t, Inc.,

15

Case No. 15-cv-02172-JSW, 2016 WL 4076097, at *5-9 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2016). Like

16

that court, this one “is unwilling to hold, as a matter of law, that a plaintiff could never

17

pursue a claim for prospective injunctive relief under the UCL or the [False Advertising

18

Law] merely because the plaintiff now knows the truth about the alleged

19

misrepresentation.” Id. at *7. However, the Court agrees with “the majority view . . . that

20

a plaintiff must allege the intent to purchase a product in the future in order to have

21

standing to seek prospective injunctive relief.” Id. at *6 (collecting cases); see also Lilly v.

22

Jamba Juice Co., No. 13-cv-02998-JST, 2015 WL 1248027, at *3-5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18,

23

2015) (“[A] willingness to consider a future purchase is sufficient.”). Plaintiffs have not

24
25
26
27
28

3

At oral argument, Defendant’s counsel asserted that he placed this argument in a
footnote “because of space limitations.” Tr. at 16:11-12. This is disingenuous. Civil
Local Rule 7-2(b) allows for 25 pages for motion papers. The 25th page of Defendant’s
motion contained only the date and signature line, and the six lines of text in the footnote
could easily have been incorporated into the main body of the motion without exceeding
the page limits. Moreover, it is impermissible to use footnotes as an attempt to get around
page limits.
11

1

done so here, but counsel indicated at oral argument that Plaintiffs might be able to cure

2

this deficiency with leave to amend. Defendant’s motion to dismiss is therefore

3

GRANTED without prejudice.

4
5

CONCLUSION

6

For the reasons discussed above, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN

7

PART and DENIED IN PART. The motion is GRANTED with prejudice as to the “Fuel

8

Up” claims and GRANTED without prejudice as to the injunctive relief claims. It is

9

DENIED in all other respects.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint on or before August 24, 2016. Failure to
do so will result in dismissal of the injunctive relief claims with prejudice.
The parties shall meet and confer and file a joint case management statement on or

13

before September 12, 2016, and appear for a case management conference on

14

September 19, 2016, at 1:30 PM.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18
19

Dated: 08/10/16

_____________________________________
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

12