Schneider et al v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.
Filing
36
ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S 15 MOTION TO DISMISS. Case Management Statement due by 11/22/2016; Initial Case Management Conference set for 11/29/2016 02:00 PM. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/4/2016)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
MARTIN SCHNEIDER, et al.,
Case No. 16-cv-02200-HSG
Plaintiffs,
8
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S
MOTION TO DISMISS
v.
9
10
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC.,
Re: Dkt. No. 15
Defendant.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
Pending before the Court is Defendant Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.’s motion to dismiss the
14
complaint without leave to amend. Dkt. No. 15 (“MTD”). The Court heard oral argument on the
15
motion on July 28, 2016. Dkt. No. 32. For the reasons articulated below, the motion is
16
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
17
Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint on five grounds: (1) Plaintiffs’ first seven
18
claims brought under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750, et seq.
19
(“CLRA”), California’s False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500, et seq.
20
(“FAL”), California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq. (“UCL”),
21
Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. §§ 501.201, et seq. (“FDUTPA”),
22
Maryland’s Consumer Protection Act, MD. Code Ann., §§ 13-101, et seq. (“MCPA”), New
23
York’s General Business Law Section 349, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349 (“Section 349”), and New
24
York’s General Business Law Section 350, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 350 (“Section 350”) fail under
25
the “reasonable consumer test”; (2) Plaintiffs’ eighth claim for unjust enrichment is not a
26
recognized cause of action; (3) Plaintiffs do not allege that Defendant made affirmative
27
misrepresentations or false statements to support their ninth claim for misrepresentation; (4)
28
Plaintiffs’ tenth claim for declaratory relief fails because they do not allege an actual controversy
1
between the parties; and (5) Plaintiffs do not have standing to seek injunctive relief. See generally
2
MTD.
3
4
5
The Court begins its analysis with the parties’ requests for judicial notice and then
addresses Defendant’s motion to dismiss.
1.
a. The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the parties’ requests
6
7
Requests for Judicial Notice
for judicial notice. See Dkt. Nos. 16, 26, 28.
8
b. The Court GRANTS the requests to take notice of (i) court documents in
9
other actions; (ii) the bill introduced to the United States Senate on June 23, 2016, proposing to
establish a national disclosure standard for bioengineered foods (“Senate Bill”); and (iii)
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Defendant’s press release dated April 27, 2015 (“Press Release”). The Court finds that the court
12
documents and Senate Bill are public documents that “can be accurately and readily determined
13
from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). The
14
Court also finds that it can take notice of Defendant’s Press Release under the incorporation by
15
reference doctrine. See Davis v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., 691 F.3d 1152, 1160 (9th Cir. 2012)
16
(Under the incorporation by reference doctrine, the Court has discretion to consider on a motion to
17
dismiss “documents whose contents are alleged in a complaint and whose authenticity no party
18
questions, but which are not physically attached to the [plaintiff’s] pleading.”).
c. The Court DENIES the requests to take judicial notice of (i) the article
19
20
entitled “Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) Use in the Chicken Industry”; (ii) the article
21
entitled “How Pervasive are GMOs in Animal Feed?”; and (iii) pages from Defendant’s website.
22
The Court finds that Plaintiffs neither refer extensively to the articles and website, nor rely upon
23
them to form the basis of their complaint. See United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir.
24
2003) (“Even if a document is not attached to a complaint, it may be incorporated by reference
25
into a complaint if the plaintiff refers extensively to the document or the document forms the basis
26
of the plaintiff’s claim.”)
27
2.
28
Motion to Dismiss
a. The motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ first seven claims under the CLRA, FAL,
2
1
UCL, FDUTPA, MCPA, Section 349, and Section 350 is DENIED. “California courts . . . have
2
recognized that whether a business practice is deceptive will usually be a question of fact not
3
appropriate for decision on demurrer.” Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 934, 938 (9th Cir.
4
2008). Plaintiffs support their allegation that Defendant’s “non-GMO” and “GMO free”
5
representations (“Non-GMO Claims”)1 are likely to deceive a reasonable consumer with
6
definitions used by the Non-GMO Project and the federal government, as well as market research
7
and surveys into consumers’ reasonable interpretations of the phrases. Dkt. No. 1 (“Compl.”)
8
¶¶ 20-25. Moreover, even were the Court to take notice of the disclaimers on Defendant’s
9
website, “product information on a website . . . cannot override as a matter of law any
misimpressions created by the label.” See Balser v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc., 640 F. App’x 694,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
696 (9th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, taking Plaintiffs’ complaint as true for the purposes of this
12
motion, the Court holds that Plaintiffs sufficiently allege that a reasonable consumer would be
13
deceived by Defendant’s Non-GMO Claims to survive at the pleading stage.
b. The motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ eighth claim for unjust enrichment is
14
15
DENIED. The Ninth Circuit has recognized that while “there is not a standalone cause of action
16
for ‘unjust enrichment’” in California, the term “describe[s] the theory underlying a claim that a
17
defendant has been unjustly conferred a benefit ‘through mistake, fraud, coercion, or request.’”
18
Astiana v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc., 783 F.3d 753, 762 (9th Cir. 2015). As such, “[w]hen a
19
plaintiff alleges unjust enrichment, a court may construe the cause of action as a quasi-contract
20
claim seeking restitution.” Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted). Following the Ninth
21
Circuit’s guidance, the Court declines to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claim for unjust enrichment and
22
instead construes it as a quasi-contract claim.
23
c. Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ ninth claim for misrepresentation
24
is DENIED. Accepting Plaintiffs’ allegations that the reasonable consumer shares their definition
25
1
26
27
28
Specifically, Defendant’s Non-GMO Claims consist of Defendant’s representations that it
prepares its food using “only non-GMO ingredients,” Compl. ¶ 34, that “all of [its] food is nonGMO,” id. ¶ 35 (quotation marks omitted), and that “[w]hen it comes to [its] food, genetically
modified ingredients don’t make the cut,” id. ¶ 37. As Plaintiffs’ counsel acknowledged at the July
28, 2016, hearing, the Court only considers the representations explicitly alleged in the complaint
for purposes of deciding this motion.
3
1
of phrases like “non-GMO” and “GMO free,” Defendant’s Non-GMO Claims were affirmative
2
misrepresentations sufficient to support Plaintiffs’ misrepresentation claim. Moreover, Plaintiffs
3
demonstrate the plausibility of their interpretation of Defendant’s Non-GMO Claims by proffering
4
definitions used by the Non-GMO Project and the federal government, as well as market research
5
and consumer surveys. See Compl. ¶¶ 20-25. Accordingly, the Court holds that Plaintiffs have
6
adequately stated a claim for misrepresentation to survive at the pleading stage.
7
d. The motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ tenth claim for declaratory relief is
8
DENIED. For the reasons noted above, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have adequately
9
alleged an actual controversy between the parties.
e. Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief is
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
GRANTED. To have standing to seek prospective injunctive relief under Article III of the United
12
States Constitution, a plaintiff must “demonstrate a real and immediate threat of repeated injury in
13
the future.” Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939, 946 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal
14
quotation marks omitted). It is entirely implausible that Plaintiffs risk being harmed by
15
Defendant’s alleged misrepresentations again. See Gershman v. Bayer HealthCare LLC, No. 14-
16
cv-05332-HSG, 2015 WL 2170214, at *8 (N.D. Cal. May 8, 2015); Rahman v. Mott’s LLP, No.
17
CV 13-3482 SI, 2014 WL 5282106, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2014), reconsideration denied, No.
18
13-CV-03482-SI, 2014 WL 6815779 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2014) (holding that plaintiff lacked
19
standing to pursue injunctive relief given his knowledge that defendant’s statement was false).
20
The Court finds that Plaintiffs have not alleged “a real and immediate threat” of future injury and
21
they therefore do not have standing to seek injunctive relief.2
22
*
23
*
*
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ first through tenth
24
25
2
26
27
28
While the Court recognizes that other district courts have allowed claims for injunctive relief to
proceed under similar circumstances based on policy reasons, the Court respectfully disagrees
with those decisions because state policy objectives cannot trump the requirements of Article III.
See Delarosa v. Boiron, Inc., No. 10-cv-01569-JST, 2012 WL 8716658, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 28,
2012) (“To the extent that . . . other cases purport to create a public-policy exception to the
standing requirement, that exception does not square with Article III’s mandate.”).
4
1
claims for relief is DENIED. Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive
2
relief is GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. See Duckett v. Schamehorn, 564 F. App’x
3
290 (9th Cir. 2014) (dismissal without leave to amend is appropriate when further amendment
4
would be futile).
5
6
7
8
9
10
The Court sets a case management conference for November 29, 2016, at 2:00 pm. The
parties shall file a joint case management statement by November 22, 2016.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 11/4/2016
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?