Ivie v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc. et al

Filing 79

ORDER by Judge Ronald M Whyte denying 77 Motion for Reconsideration of dismissal of unjust enrichment claim 49 (rmwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/14/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
12

SUSAN IVIE on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated,

13

Case No. C-12-02554-RMW

Plaintiff,

14

v.

15

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL, INC.,
CADBURY ADAMS USA LLC, and
BACK TO NATURE FOOD COMPANY,

16
17

[Re Docket No. 77]

Defendants.

18
19

Plaintiff Susan Ivie brings claims on her own behalf and on behalf of a purported class of

20

consumers against Kraft Foods Global, Inc., Cadbury Adams USA LLC, and Back to Nature Food

21

Company (collectively, “defendants”), for their allegedly misbranded food products. Plaintiff’s First

22

Amended Complaint (FAC) included claims for violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law

23

(“UCL”), False Advertising Law (“FAL”), and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), and a

24

claim for “Restitution Based on Unjust Enrichment/Quasi Contract.” Dkt. No. 18 (FAC). The court

25

dismissed with prejudice plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim as duplicative of the UCL, FAL, and

26

CLRA claims. Dkt. No. 49 at 22-23. Plaintiff now moves for leave to file a motion for

27

reconsideration of the court’s order dismissing the unjust enrichment claim. Dkt. No. 77; Civil L. R.

28

7-9. For the reasons explained below, the court DENIES the motion for leave.
ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION
Case No. C-12-02554-RMW
LRM

-1-

I. Analysis

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14

A. Standard on Motion for Reconsideration
“Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered
evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an
intervening change in controlling law. There may also be other, highly unusual, circumstances
warranting reconsideration.” School Dist. No. 1J Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,
1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted).
Plaintiff bases her motion for reconsideration on a material change in law. Civ. L. R. 79(b)(1); Dkt. No.77 at 1. Plaintiff argues that (1) the Ninth Circuit has ruled that unjust enrichment
is a “standalone cause of action in California” and (2) the remedy of disgorgement, which is not
available under the UCL, FAL, or CLRA, is available under an unjust enrichment claim, making
unjust enrichment non-duplicative.
B. Berger and Ohno Are Not Dispositive Given the Stated Basis For Dismissing Plaintiff’s
Unjust Enrichment Claim
Plaintiff’s first argument is that two new cases, Berger v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 741 F.3d

15

1061 (9th Cir. 2014) and Ohno v. Yasuma, 723 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2013), establish that unjust

16

enrichment is a cause of action under California law. Dkt. No. 77 at 2-3. This change in law is not

17

dispositive given the court’s prior order, which dismissed the unjust enrichment claim as

18

“superfluous” and “merely duplicative” of plaintiff’s UCL, FAL, and CLRA claims. Dkt. No. 49 at

19

22-23. The court did not base its dismissal on the viability of an unjust enrichment cause of action,

20

and the court’s dismissal is not in conflict with Berger or Ohno.

21

C. Plaintiff Cannot Recover Disgorgement Under An Unjust Enrichment Claim In This Case

22

Plaintiff’s next argument is that the unjust enrichment claim is not duplicative of her UCL,

23

FAL, and CLRA claims because the remedy of “nonrestitutionary disgorgement” is available under

24

an unjust enrichment claim, and not under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA claims. Dkt. No. 77 at 4-6,

25

citing Am. Master Lease LLC v. Idanta Partners, Ltd., 225 Cal. App. 4th 1451, 1482 (2014), as

26
27
28
ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION
Case No. C-12-02554-RMW
LRM

-2-

1

modified (May 27, 2014) (“Idanta”) and Meister v. Mensinger, 230 Cal. App. 4th 381, 399 (2014),

2

reh’g denied (Oct. 30, 2014). 1

3
4

First, the court agrees that nonrestitutionary disgorgement is not a remedy under the UCL,
FAL, or CLRA. See Dkt. No. 77 at 4-5 n.3 (collecting cases).

5

Nonetheless, the unjust enrichment claim is duplicative because “nonrestitutionary

6

disgorgement” is not available in this case. It is clear that plaintiff is requesting as “nonrestitutionary

7

disgorgement” a full refund of the purchase price. Dkt. No. 77 at 4-5 (explaining that a full refund is

8

not available under the UCL, and would constitute nonrestitutionary disgorgement). There is no

9

support in the cases cited by plaintiff for awarding the full purchase price, or any amount greater

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

than the profit attributable to the mislabeling. Both cases cited by plaintiff recognize this, noting that

11

“[t]ypically, the defendant’s benefit and the plaintiff’s loss are the same, and restitution requires the

12

defendant to restore the plaintiff to his or her original position.” Idanta, 225 Cal. App. 4th at 1482;

13

Meister, 230 Cal. App. 4th at 398 (both quoting County of San Bernardino v. Walsh, 158 Cal. App.

14

4th 533, 542 (2007)). It is only where the plaintiff’s loss and defendant’s gain do not match where

15

disgorgement of profits would be appropriate.

16

The analysis in both Idanta and Meister relies heavily on the Restatement (Third) of

17

Restitution and Unjust Enrichment § 51. Section 51(4) explains that “[t]he object of restitution . . . is

18

to eliminate profit from wrongdoing while avoiding, so far as possible, the imposition of a penalty.”

19

Accordingly, much of the section discusses how to apportion and isolate the amount of net profit

20

resulting from the defendant’s unlawful conduct. Here, it is clear that the amount of plaintiff’s

21

damage and the amount of defendants’ benefit as a result of the mislabeling are the same. There is

22

no reason to go beyond the price premium, and doing so would result in a windfall to plaintiff.

23

Idanta and Meister both support the court’s original conclusion: plaintiffs may only recover

24

restitutionary damages, which would be the price premium attributable to the offending labels, and

25

no more. Because such a remedy is available under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA, the unjust

26
27
28

1

Neither Idanta nor Meister relates to false advertising or misrepresentations; both involve the breach of fiduciary
duties.
ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION
Case No. C-12-02554-RMW
-3LRM

1

enrichment claim was duplicative and properly dismissed. Brazil v. Dole Food Co., 935 F. Supp. 2d

2

947, 967 (N.D. Cal. 2013).

3

Because plaintiff cannot recover disgorgement, her argument that the unjust enrichment

4

claim would provide her with “an additional, cumulative avenue of recovery” is not persuasive. Dkt.

5

No. 77 at 7. Additionally, as defendants point out, plaintiff has not pointed to any change in the law

6

regarding the cumulative nature of unjust enrichment remedies. Dkt. No. 78 at 3. Finally, the court

7

also agrees with defendants that plaintiff’s FAC does not actually include a claim for disgorgement.

8

Her unjust enrichment claim only requests restitution as a remedy. FAC at ¶¶ 299-302.

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

II. Order
For the reasons explained above, the court DENIES the motion for reconsideration.

11
12
13

Dated: January 14, 2015

_________________________________
RONALD M. WHYTE
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION
Case No. C-12-02554-RMW
LRM

-4-