De Keczer v. Tetley USA, Inc
Filing
47
ORDER granting 22 Motion to Dismiss. If Plaintiff wishes to further amend her complaint, the Court orders that it be pled in compliance with the pleading standards of Rules 8 and 9 and filed within 15 days of the date of this Order. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 8/16/2013. (ejdlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/16/2013) Modified on 8/16/2013 (ejdlc1, COURT STAFF).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
SAN JOSE DIVISION
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
DARYL DE KECZER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
TETLEY USA, INC.,
15
Defendant.
16
17
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 5:12-CV-02409 EJD
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS
[Re: Docket No. 22]
Plaintiff Daryl De Keczer (“Plaintiff”) filed this putative class action against Defendant
18
Tetley USA Inc. (“Defendant”). Plaintiff alleges that labeling on several of Defendant’s food
19
products and corresponding statements on Defendant’s websites amount to misbranding and
20
deception in violation of California and federal laws and regulations. Presently before the Court is
21
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. See Docket Item No. 22. Having
22
fully reviewed the parties’ papers, the Court will grant Defendant’s Motion.
23
24
25
I.
Background
Plaintiff, a California resident, states that since 2008 she spent more than $25.00 purchasing
26
Defendant’s “tea products.” See Am. Compl. 1, ¶ 18, Docket Item No. 21. Plaintiff argues that
27
Defendant makes unlawfully misleading “antioxidant, nutrient content, and health claims” both on
28
1
Case No.: 5:12-CV-02409 EJD
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
1
the labeling of these products and its website. See, e.g., Id. ¶¶ 7, 15, 72. Plaintiff alleges that she
2
read and relied on these labels when deciding to purchase the products. Id. ¶¶ 139–40.
3
On August 13, 2012, Plaintiff filed the Amended Class Action Complaint on behalf of
4
herself and a putative class she defines as follows: “All persons in California who purchased
5
Defendant’s tea products including but not limited to its (1) Classic Blend Black Tea, (2) British
6
Blend Black Tea, (3) Pure Green Tea, (4) Iced Tea Blend Tea, and/or (5) Iced Tea Mix.” See id.
7
¶ 149. In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff brings forth the following causes of action: violations
8
of California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. (counts
9
1–3); violations of the False Advertising Law (“FAL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 et seq.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
(counts 4–5); violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et
11
seq. (count 6); restitution based on unjust enrichment or quasi-contract (count 7); and breach of
12
warranty in violation of the Song-Beverly Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1790 et seq. (count 8) and the
13
Magnuson-Moss Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq. (count 9).
14
Under California’s Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Laws, the federal labeling
15
requirements are adopted as the food labeling requirements of the state of California. See Cal.
16
Health & Safety Code § 110100(a) (“All food labeling regulations and any amendments to those
17
regulations adopted pursuant to the federal act, in effect on January 1, 1993, or adopted on or after
18
that date shall be the food regulations of this state.”). The state laws also point to the adoption of
19
specific federal provisions as the parallel state labeling requirements. See, e.g., id. § 110665 (“Any
20
food is misbranded if its labeling does not conform with the requirements for nutrition labeling as
21
set forth in Section 403(q) (21 U.S.C. Sec. 343(q)) of the federal act and the regulations adopted
22
pursuant thereto. Any food exempted from those requirements under the federal act shall also be
23
exempt under this section.”). As such, Plaintiff argues that violations of the federal laws and
24
regulations—namely the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”), 21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq. as
25
amended by the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (“NLEA”)—would amount to violations of
26
the identical California state requirements.
27
28
2
Case No.: 5:12-CV-02409 EJD
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
1
2
II.
Legal Standard
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader
is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Initially, all a complaint needed was to give “fair
4
notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Conley v. Gibson, 355
5
U.S. 41, 47 (1957). But the Supreme Court in recent years has made clear that the pleader also
6
needs to show “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Ashcroft v.
7
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). That is, a complaint now needs to allege enough facts with
8
enough specificity such that, if true, they would “raise a reasonable expectation that discovery”
9
would actually evince the particular violations. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
3
(2007). The factual allegations must be sufficiently specific “to raise a right to relief above the
11
speculative level,” such that each claim “is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556–57.
12
When weighing the complaint’s sufficiency at the motion-to-dismiss stage, courts generally
13
“may not consider any material beyond the pleadings.” Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner
14
& Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1555 n.19 (9th Cir. 1990). Courts also generally assume each allegation is
15
true. But they “are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.”
16
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
17
Fraud-based claims are subject to further heightened pleading requirements under Federal
18
Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). A party alleging fraud “must state with particularity the
19
circumstances constituting fraud.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). The allegations must be “specific enough to
20
give defendants notice of the particular misconduct which is alleged to constitute the fraud charged
21
so that they can defend against the charge and not just deny that they have done anything wrong.”
22
Semegen v. Weidner, 780 F.2d 727, 731 (9th Cir. 1985). To that end, the allegations must contain
23
“an account of the ‘time, place, and specific content of the false representations as well as the
24
identities of the parties to the misrepresentations.’” Swartz v. KPMG LLP, 476 F.3d 756, 764 (9th
25
Cir. 2007). Allegations of fraud must specify “‘the who, what, when, where, and how’ of the
26
misconduct charged.” Vess v. Ciba–Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1106 (9th Cir. 2003).
27
Additionally, “the plaintiff must plead facts explaining why the statement was false when it was
28
3
Case No.: 5:12-CV-02409 EJD
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
1
made.” Smith v. Allstate Ins. Co., 160 F. Supp. 2d 1150, 1152 (S.D. Cal. 2001); see also In re
2
GlenFed, Inc. Sec. Litig., 42 F.3d 1541, 1549 (9th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (superseded by statute on
3
other grounds).
4
5
III.
Discussion
6
A. Warranty Claims
7
The Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“SBCWA”) provides a private right of action
8
for buyers of consumer goods for express or implied warranty violations. Cal. Civ. Code § 1794.
9
The SBCWA defines “consumer goods” as “any new product or part thereof that is used, bought,
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
or leased for use primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, except for …
11
consumables,” id. § 1791(a) (emphasis added), and defines “consumables” as “any product that is
12
intended for consumption by individuals, or use by individuals for purposes of personal care or in
13
the performance of services ordinarily rendered within the household, and that usually is consumed
14
or expended in the course of consumption or use.” Id. § 1791(d). The Court finds that the products
15
at issue here—apparent food products—fall under this definition of “consumables.”
16
Plaintiff does not dispute that the products at issue here are consumables under the SBCWA
17
and would therefore be excepted from section 1794. See Am. Compl. ¶ 228 (“Defendant’s food
18
products are ‘consumables’ as defined by Cal. Civ. Code § 1791(d).”) Rather, Plaintiff appears to
19
argue that the product labels constitute express warranties and that the products in question
20
therefore fall under the provisions of sections 1793.35, which provides for the enforcement of
21
express warranties on consumables. The Court rejects this argument because food labels, like the
22
ones at issue, do not constitute express warranties against a product defect. See Astiana v. Dreyer’s
23
Grand Ice Cream, Inc., No. C-11-2910 EMC, C-11-3164 EMC, 2012 WL 2990766, at *3 (N.D.
24
Cal. July 20, 2012); Jones v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., -- F. Supp. 2d --, No. C 12-01633 CRB, 2012
25
WL 6569393, at *12–13 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2012). Labels on product packaging and websites are
26
“product descriptions rather than promises that [a food product] is defect-free, or guarantees of
27
specific performance levels.” Hairston v. S. Beach Beverage Co., No. CV 12-1429-JFW, 2012 WL
28
4
Case No.: 5:12-CV-02409 EJD
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
1
1893818, at *6 (C.D. Cal. May 18, 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, the
2
Court finds that the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim for a violation of the SBCWA.
3
The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (“MMWA”) creates a civil cause of action for
4
consumers to enforce the terms of written warranties. 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d). Similar to Plaintiff’s
5
argument for the applicability of the SBCWA, she contends that the labeling on the products at
6
issue constitutes an express warranty. Having found the contrary under the guidance of Astiana
7
and ConAgra Foods, the Court rejects this argument and finds that Plaintiff fails to state a claim for
8
a violation of the MMWA.
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Accordingly, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims based on violations of the SBCWA and
the MMWA (counts 8 and 9).
11
12
B. Sufficiency of the Pleadings
13
The Court now turns to whether the remaining claims are sufficient to withstand
14
Defendant’s motion in light of the pleading standards set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil
15
Procedure. As an initial matter, the Court notes that the heightened Rule 9 pleading standard
16
applies to claims for false or deceptive advertising brought under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA.
17
Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120, 1125 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Herrington v. Johnson &
18
Johnson Consumer Cos., No. C 09-1597 CW, 2010 WL 3448531, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2010)
19
(subjecting UCL, FAL, and CLRA claims that “sound in fraud” to the heightened Rule 9 pleading
20
standards). Because Plaintiff’s remaining claims involve allegations of fraudulent conduct,
21
deception, or misrepresentation, the Rule 9 pleading standard applies to the Amended Complaint.
22
See Jones v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 912 F. Supp. 2d 889, 899 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (applying the
23
heightened Rule 9 pleading standard to the complaint in a similar suit); Colucci v. ZonePerfect
24
Nutrition Co., No. 12-2907-SC, 2012 WL 6737800, at *8–9 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 28, 2012) (same). As
25
such, Plaintiff is required to aver with particularity the specific circumstances surrounding the
26
alleged mislabeling that gives rise to her claims. Plaintiff must state with clarity the “‘who, what,
27
when, where, and how’” of the fraudulent conduct, Vess, 317 F.3d at 1106, and provide an
28
5
Case No.: 5:12-CV-02409 EJD
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
1
unambiguous account of the “‘time, place, and specific content of the false representations,’”
2
Swartz, 476 F.3d at 764.
3
Throughout the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff uses the term “Misbranded Food Products.”
4
This term is the foundation of Plaintiff’s several claims, appearing no less than eighty times in the
5
Amended Complaint. Plaintiff defines the term in the Amended Complaint’s introduction:
6
Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a class of California consumers who
purchased Defendant’s tea products including but not limited to its (1) Classic
Blend Black Tea, (2) British Blend Black Tea, (3) Pure Green Tea, (4) Iced Tea
Blend Tea, and/or (5) Iced Tea Mix Tea (“Misbranded Food Products”) within the
last four years.
7
8
9
Am. Compl. 1 (emphases added). Rather than consisting of finite and particular tea products,
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
“Misbranded Food Products” purports to encapsulate an open-ended class of these products. While
11
Plaintiff does list specific and particular tea products produced by Defendant, the above-quoted
12
sentence states that the term “Misbranded Food Products” is “not limited to” those products.
13
Therefore, “Misbranded Food Products” does not solely and entirely refer to specific and particular
14
products. Further obfuscating matters is Plaintiff’s enumeration of exactly three products that she
15
claims to have purchased. Id. ¶ 138. The three enumerated products are “British Blend, Premium
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Black Tea and Green Tea.” Id. This listing does not precisely mirror the description of the
“Misbranded Food Products,” which includes, but is not limited to “(1) Classic Blend Black Tea,
(2) British Blend Black Tea, (3) Pure Green Tea, (4) Iced Tea Blend Tea, and/or (5) Iced Tea.” Id.
at 1. The placement of the ambiguous assertion that Plaintiff purchased a non-definite group of
products alongside the enumerated list adds another layer of ambiguity and confusion as to
precisely which products Plaintiff purchased.
Applying the Rule 9 pleading standard, the Court finds that the Amended Complaint does
not provide a clear and unambiguous account of the allegedly fraudulent, deceptive,
misrepresentative, or otherwise unlawful statements. The Amended Complaint fails to
unambiguously specify the particular products that have violated particular labeling requirements.
The Amended Complaint contains the same deficiencies as did the pleadings in similar food
product labeling lawsuits that were recently dismissed by this Court. See Maxwell v. Unilever
28
6
Case No.: 5:12-CV-02409 EJD
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
1
U.S., Inc., No. 5:12-CV-01736-EJD, 2013 WL 1435232 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2013) (dismissing the
2
fraud-related mislabeling claims for failure to meet the Rule 9 specificity and particularity
3
standards); Thomas v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 5:12-CV-02908-EJD, 2013 WL 1435292
4
(N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2013) (same). Like in those cases, here, Defendant—as well as the Court—
5
would have to draw its own inferences about the products at issue and alleged mislabeling based on
6
the equivocal assertions contained in the Amended Complaint. Drawing such inferences about the
7
particular misconduct that is alleged to constitute fraud, deception, or misrepresentation is
8
something the heightened Rule 9 pleading standard seeks to avoid. See Semegen, 780 F.2d at 731.
9
As such, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims have not been sufficiently pled so as to meet
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
the heightened Rule 9 pleading standard. The Court will accordingly dismiss the remaining seven
11
claims.
12
13
IV.
14
Conclusion and Order
For the foregoing reasons Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s breach
15
of warranty claims predicated on violations of the SBCWA (count 8) and the MMWA (count 9) are
16
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The remaining of Plaintiff’s claims (counts 1–7) are
17
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
18
If Plaintiff wishes to further amend her complaint, the Court orders that it be pled in
19
compliance with the pleading standards of Rules 8 and 9 and filed within 15 days of the date of this
20
Order.
21
Because the Amended Complaint is presently dismissed in its entirety, the Court declines to
22
set a case management schedule at this time. However, the Court will address scheduling issues as
23
raised by the parties should it become necessary.
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
Dated: August 16, 2013
26
27
_________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge
28
7
Case No.: 5:12-CV-02409 EJD
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
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?