Troy Backus v. ConAgra, Inc.

Filing 55

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AS TO REMAINING CLAIM. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 10/3/2016. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/3/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

TROY BACKUS, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. C 16-00454 WHA

v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION
TO DISMISS

CONAGRA FOODS, INC.,
Defendant.
/

16
17
18

INTRODUCTION
In this putative class action regarding trans-fat, defendant moves to dismiss the

19

complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). A prior order dismissed several claims

20

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). For the reasons stated below, the motion to dismiss the remaining

21

claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) is DENIED.

22
23

STATEMENT
A prior order (1) dismissed all claims except for one mislabeling claim and (2) permitted

24

limited discovery into the basis for plaintiff’s Article III standing (Dkt. No. 44). As to the

25

remaining mislabeling claim, plaintiff alleges that a “healthy lifestyle” label on Fleischmann’s

26

margarine products violates various laws, including California Business and Professions Code

27

Section 17200. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of consumers who purchased Fleischmann’s

28

margarine products on or after January 1, 2008.

1

The following undisputed facts emerged from the limited discovery ordered by the

2

Court. Plaintiff purchased and consumed Fleischmann’s margarine products starting over a

3

decade ago (Backus Dep. at 65; Backus Decl. ¶ 1). Plaintiff thought that the label “maintaining

4

a healthy lifestyle” meant that Fleischmann’s margarine was a healthy product (Backus Dep.

5

at 120).

6

Plaintiff’s understanding of the health consequences of trans-fat evolved over time.

7

Starting in the late 1990s or early 2000s, plaintiff “had heard” that trans-fat might “be bad or

8

have some health consequences” (id. at 101). By the time plaintiff filed another lawsuit based

9

on trans-fat in April 30, 2015, plaintiff believed that there was no safe level of trans-fat (id. at
133).

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

Plaintiff admits that he has not been diagnosed with any of the diseases described in the
amended complaint (Backus Decl. ¶ 7).

13

Both parties filed supplemental briefs regarding the issue of Article III standing.

14

ANALYSIS

15

To establish standing, a plaintiff must show: “(1) he or she has suffered an injury in fact

16

that is concrete and particularized, and actual or imminent; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to

17

the challenged conduct; and (3) the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable court

18

decision.” Salmon Spawning & Recovery Alliance v. Gutierrez, 545 F.3d 1220, 1225 (9th Cir.

19

2008).

20

Here, plaintiff began buying the product over a decade ago. He asserts he was misled by

21

the “healthy lifestyle” label on the margarine products. At the very least, plaintiff has

22

established a financial injury from purchasing a product in reliance on the misleading “healthy

23

lifestyle” label. Therefore, plaintiff has standing to assert his mislabeling claims.

24

CONCLUSION

25

For the reasons stated below, the motion to dismiss the remaining claim is DENIED.

26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27

Dated: October 3, 2016.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
2