Troy Backus v. ConAgra, Inc.

Filing 136

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE, GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINTS, AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE [re (122 in 3:16-cv-00454-WHA) MOTION to Consolidate Cases filed by Troy Backus, (41 in 3:17-cv-00387-WHA ) MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action Complaint filed by Conagra Brands, Inc.]. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Show Cause Response due by NOON on 3/20/2019. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 3/5/2019. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/5/2019)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
TROY BACKUS,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

Plaintiffs,

No. C 16-00454 WHA

v.

No. C 17-00387 WHA

CONAGRA BRANDS, INC.,

14

Defendants.
/

15
16
17

Plaintiff,

18
19
20
21

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
CONSOLIDATE, GRANTING
IN PART AND DENYING IN
PART MOTION TO AMEND
THE COMPLAINTS, AND
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

MARJEL MCFADDIN and MARK
BEASLEY, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated,

v.
CONAGRA BRANDS, INC.,
Defendants.
/

22
23

INTRODUCTION

24

In this putative class action for violation of Section 17200 of the California Business &

25

Professions Code, plaintiffs move to consolidate and amend the complaints. For the following

26

reasons, plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate is DENIED and the motion to amend the complaints is

27

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

28

1
2

STATEMENT
Plaintiff Troy Backus brought his putative class action in January 2016 against

3

defendant’s use and mislabeling of artificial trans fats in its margarine products.

4

For many years, Backus purchased and consumed a variety of margarine spreads and sticks

5

under the brand name Fleischmann’s, which was manufactured and sold by ConAgra Foods,

6

predecessor to defendant Conagra Brands. Conagra’s products used partially hydrogenated oil,

7

a food additive derived from low-cost oils that contained artificial trans fat, which had been

8

linked to increased risk of certain medical conditions like cardiovascular heart disease, diabetes,

9

cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, and organ damage. In June 2015, The Food and Drug
Administration issued a final determination that partially hydrogenated oils were no longer

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

“generally recognized as safe” (Case No. C 16-00454 WHA, First Amd. Compl. ¶¶ 4–8, 20–21,

12

66–71).

13

Backus’s amended complaint alleged various claims for relief for Conagra’s use of

14

artificial trans fat, on the basis that using artificial trans fat in food products was unlawful and

15

unfair, and for its product mislabeling, on the basis that its labels misrepresented the product.

16

The mislabeling claims were premised on front and back product labels that described the

17

products as containing “0g of Trans-Fat” and “No Trans-Fat”; labels that claimed the products

18

contained “100% Less Cholesterol” and “70% Less Saturated Fat” than butter; and a label that

19

claimed, “[t]he delicious taste of Fleischmann’s enhances your favorite foods while maintaining

20

your healthy lifestyle” (Case No. C 16-00454 WHA, First Amd. Compl. ¶¶ 79–95, 103–122).

21

Conagra moved to dismiss and succeeded in dismissing all the use claims and all but

22

one of the mislabeling claims. Only the mislabeling claim related to maintaining a healthy

23

lifestyle survived. The action continued for that single claim, but in December 2016, plaintiff

24

Backus was rejected as a class representative for presenting individualized issues and failing to

25

satisfy the typicality requirement (Case No. C 16-00454 WHA, Dkt. Nos. 24, 44, 75).

26

In January 2017, counsel for plaintiff Backus filed another putative class action against

27

Conagra in this district with new plaintiffs Marjel McFaddin and Mark Beasley. The complaint

28

was nearly identical to the complaint in the Backus action and included the use and mislabeling
2

1

claims that had already been dismissed. Accordingly, Conagra again filed a motion to dismiss.

2

With the motion still pending, however, both the Backus and McFaddin actions were stayed

3

in October 2017 in light of two separate actions, both also brought by plaintiffs’ counsel,

4

fully briefed and pending before our court of appeals that teed up the same issues of law that

5

controlled these actions (Case No. C 17-00387 WHA, Dkt. Nos. 1, 35, 41, 47).

6

Now that the two actions in our court of appeals, Hawkins v. Kroger, 906 F.3d 763

7

(9th Cir. 2018), and Hawkins v. AdvancePierre Foods, Inc., 733 Fed. Appx. 906 (9th Cir. 2018)

8

(unpublished), have been decided, an order was filed lifting the stay and instructing plaintiffs

9

to file a motion for leave to consolidate and amend the complaints (Case No. C 16-00454
WHA, Dkt. No. 121; Case No. C 17-00387 WHA, Dkt. No. 64).

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

ANALYSIS

12

1.

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE.

13

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), a district court may consolidate actions

14

where the actions involve a “common question of law or fact.” A “district court has broad

15

discretion under this rule to consolidate cases pending in the same district.” Investors Research

16

Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989).

17

In determining whether to consolidate cases, the court should “weigh the interest of judicial

18

convenience against the potential for delay, confusion, and prejudice.” Zhu v. UCBH Holdings,

19

Inc., 682 F. Supp. 2d 1049, 1052 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (Judge Jeffrey White).

20

Conagra opposes consolidation and would rather stay both actions in light of another

21

action in our court of appeals, McGee v. S-L Snacks National, LLC, No. C 17-55577, that was

22

brought by plaintiffs’ counsel and has already been fully briefed and argued. Conagra claims

23

that plaintiffs’ counsel specifically requested a published decision on the issue of preemption

24

of partially hydrogenated oil use claims. In the alternative, Conagra requests that the Backus

25

action be stayed pending resolution of the McFaddin action (Opp. 1–3).

26

Neither of Conagra's arguments to stay is persuasive. Both actions were already stayed

27

for over a year awaiting the decisions of our court of appeals. Both actions will not be stayed

28

again, especially in light of the awaited decision in Kroger, which decided that the mislabeling
3

1

claims related to the “0g of Trans-Fat” and “No Trans-Fat” labels were not preempted and were

2

allowed to continue. Kroger, 906 F.3d at 771–72. Here, there is no chance, like before the

3

previous stay, that all claims are preempted and disallowed. Arguments for staying the Backus

4

action pending resolution of the McFaddin action are also unpersuasive. Conagra has addressed

5

why staying the Backus action pending the McFaddin action is favorable to consolidation, but

6

has failed to persuasively argue why staying the Backus action would be favorable to both

7

actions continuing independently (Opp. 11–15; Reply Br. 1–2).

8
9

Plaintiffs support consolidation and are correct that both actions share nearly identical
complaints and involve many common questions of law or fact. Plaintiffs, however, are
unpersuasive as to why these two actions in different procedural postures should be

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

consolidated. Plaintiff Backus has already failed class certification and there is a risk that his

12

individualized issues could cause confusion. The offsetting benefit of consolidation is unclear.

13

Plaintiffs’ counsel stated at oral argument that the benefit was access to discovery from the

14

Backus action. That benefit, however, can still be achieved without consolidation and without

15

the possible confusion caused by plaintiff Backus’s individualized issues. Thus, the motion to

16

consolidate is DENIED. By NOON ON MARCH 20, 2019, Conagra must SHOW CAUSE as to why

17

discovery from the Backus action should not be usable in the McFaddin action to the same

18

extent as in the Backus action.

19

2.

20

MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINTS.
A.

Kroger and AdvancePierre.

21

Plaintiffs’ counsel has appended a proposed consolidated complaint to the motion to

22

consolidate. In light of the denial of the motion to consolidate, the analysis of the proposed

23

consolidated complaint will apply to both amended complaints that will be separately filed

24

in the Backus and McFaddin actions. Before discussing the proposed complaint, however,

25

the recent decisions of our court of appeals, for which the two actions were stayed, must be

26

discussed.

27
28

In Hawkins v. Kroger, our appeals court decided whether FDA trans fat regulations
governing the contents of the Nutritional Facts Panel preempted Section 17200 of the California
4

1

Business & Professions Code. The relevant FDA regulations provided that if the product

2

contained less than 0.5 grams of trans fat, the Nutritional Facts Panel was required to tell the

3

customer that the product contained 0 grams of trans fat.

4

Our appeals court found Reid v. Johnson & Johnson, 780 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2015), to be

5

squarely controlling. Reid held that “a requirement to state certain facts in the nutrition label

6

is not a license to make that statement elsewhere on the product.” Id. at 960. Thus, Kroger

7

concluded that although the regulations required products to report 0 grams of trans fat in the

8

Nutritional Facts Panel, reporting that there was zero trans fat or no trans fat anywhere else

9

on the packaging was misleading. Kroger declined to decide whether the claims concerning
the use of partially hydrogenated oil were also preempted by federal law. Kroger, 906 F.3d at

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

770–773.

12

In Hawkins v. AdvancePierre Foods, a nonbinding unpublished memorandum, our

13

appeals court provided some dicta on how it might view partially hydrogenated oil use claims

14

in the future. Our appeals court assumed without deciding that federal preemption did not

15

apply, then asserted that Hawkins had nevertheless failed to state a claim for violation of

16

Section 17200 of the California Business & Professions Code. The use claim under the

17

unlawful prong failed as there was no underlying federal law prohibiting partially hydrogenated

18

oils prior to June 18, 2018. The use claim under the unfairness prong was also summarily

19

rejected. AdvancePierre, 733 Fed. Appx. at 906–907.

20
21

B.

Proposed Consolidated Complaint.

In the order lifting the stay, plaintiffs were ordered to file a motion to consolidate and

22

amend the complaints and “specifically describe each claim for relief that plaintiffs believe

23

should be asserted as a result of the court of appeals’ decision.” Separately, plaintiffs were

24

ordered to “address any further allegations plaintiffs claim they can assert as a result of new

25

updated scientific and regulatory information.” Plaintiffs have failed to do so. Instead, counsel

26

for plaintiffs has attached a consolidated, amended complaint that recycles arguments and

27

claims already rejected in the Backus action to attempt to gain another bite of the apple (Case

28

No. C 16-00454 WHA, Dkt. Nos. 121, 122; Case No. C 17-00387 WHA, Dkt. No. 64).
5

1

Specifically, the consolidated complaint attempts to reintroduce claims related to the use

2

of partially hydrogenated oils that had already been dismissed in the Backus action. Kroger

3

specifically chose not to address use claims related to partially hydrogenated oils and

4

AdvancePierre, while unpublished and nonbinding, provided dicta that arguably weakened the

5

prospect of successfully bringing partially hydrogenated oil use claims. Nothing from those

6

two decisions of our court of appeals supports the reintroduction of the already dismissed use

7

claims. In addition, at least five judges in our district, including the undersigned, have

8

disallowed use claims for partially hydrogenated oils. Conagra provides the most recent

9

decision by Judge William Orrick as supplemental authority (Case No. C 16-00454 WHA,
Dkt. No. 130; Case No. C 17-00387 WHA, Dkt. No. 70). Thus, the motion to amend the

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

complaints with claims related to the use of partially hydrogenated oils is DENIED.

12

The consolidated complaint also attempts to reintroduce mislabeling claims that were

13

based on labels claiming “70% Less Saturated Fat” and “100% Less Cholesterol” than butter.

14

Those mislabeling claims were dismissed in the Backus action and plaintiffs has provided no

15

change in factual or legal circumstance to support why they should be allowed again.

16

The inclusion of those claims in the amended complaints similarly must be DENIED.

17

Kroger did speak specifically to the viability of mislabeling claims that involved

18

“No Trans-Fat” or “0g of Trans-Fat.” Those mislabeling claims and the healthy lifestyle

19

mislabeling claim that survived the original Backus action can be included in the amended

20

complaints. The motion to amend the complaints with respect to these specific mislabeling

21

claims is GRANTED.

22
23

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the motion to consolidate is DENIED. By NOON ON MARCH 20, 2019,

24

Conagra must SHOW CAUSE as to why discovery from the Backus action should not be usable,

25

to the same extent, in the McFaddin action. The motion to amend the complaints is GRANTED

26

IN PART and

27

Backus action and the McFaddin action that are limited to the mislabeling claims for

DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs must submit separate amended complaints for the

28
6

1

“No Trans-Fat”, “0g of Trans-Fat”, and “The delicious taste of Fleischmann’s enhances your

2

favorite foods while maintaining your healthy lifestyle.”

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: March 5, 2019.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7