Clay et al v. Cytosport, Inc.
Filing
53
ORDER Denying 24 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 8/19/2015. (knb)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
12
CHAYLA CLAY, ERICA
EHRLICHMAN, and LOGAN
REICHERT, on behalf of themselves
and those similarly situated,
13
Plaintiffs,
11
14
Case No. 15-cv-165 L (DHB)
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
DISMISS [ECF NO. 24]
v.
15
CYTOSPORT, INC.,
16
Defendant.
17
18
19
Pending before the Court is Defendant’s fully briefed motion to dismiss under
20
FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). The Court finds this motion suitable for determination on
21
the papers submitted and without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7.1(d.1). For the
22
following reasons, the Court DENIES the motion.
23
//
24
//
25
//
26
//
27
//
28
//
–1–
15cv165
1
I.
BACKGROUND
2
According to the Complaint, Defendant Cytosport, Inc. (“Defendant”)
3
“formulates, manufactures, advertises and sells the popular ‘Muscle Milk’ and
4
Cytosport branded powdered and ready-to-drink (“RTD”) protein supplements
5
throughout the United States.” (Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 1.) Defendant markets these
6
products “as reasonably-priced protein supplements for elite athletes and those with
7
more moderate athletic and weight management goals,” but does so in “a
8
systematically misleading manner, stating that its products have ingredients,
9
characteristics and benefits that they do not.” (Id.) Namely, Defendant misrepresents
10
(1) the amount of protein, (2) the presence of unbonded L-Glutamine, and (3) the
11
nature of the fat contents of several subsets of its popular “Muscle Milk” and
12
“Cytosport” branded protein supplements. (Id. ¶¶ 2-8.)
13
Plaintiffs Chayla Clay, Erica Ehrlichman, and Logan Reichert (“Plaintiffs”)
14
have purchased several of Defendant’s Muscle Milk products. (Id. ¶¶ 11-13.) On
15
January 23, 2015, Plaintiffs filed the instant class action complaint, seeking class
16
wide relief for violations of (1) Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500, et seq., (2) Cal.
17
Civ. Code §§ 1750, et seq., (3) Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq., (4) Fla. Stat.
18
§§ 501.201, et seq., and (5) M.C.L. §§ 445.901, et seq., as well as (6) breach of
19
express warranty and (7) breach of written warranty. On March 30, 2015, Defendant
20
filed the instant motion to dismiss, arguing that Plaintiffs’ claims are preempted,
21
should be dismissed or stayed under the primary jurisdiction doctrine, and otherwise
22
improper. The motion is fully briefed.
23
//
24
//
25
//
26
//
27
//
28
//
–2–
15cv165
1
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
2
Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim
3
The court must dismiss a cause of action for failure to state a claim upon which
4
relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A motion to dismiss under Rule
5
12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint. Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729,
6
732 (9th Cir. 2001). The court must accept all allegations of material fact as true and
7
construe them in light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Cedars-Sinai Med.
8
Ctr. v. Nat’l League of Postmasters of U.S., 497 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2007).
9
Material allegations, even if doubtful in fact, are assumed to be true. Bell Atl. Corp.
10
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). However, the court need not “necessarily
11
assume the truth of legal conclusions merely because they are cast in the form of
12
factual allegations.” Warren v. Fox Family Worldwide, Inc., 328 F.3d 1136, 1139
13
(9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). In fact, the court does not need to
14
accept any legal conclusions as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
15
“While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not
16
need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of
17
his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic
18
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555
19
(internal citations omitted). Instead, the allegations in the complaint “must be enough
20
to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. Thus, “[t]o survive a motion
21
to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
22
‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing
23
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads
24
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
25
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. “The plausibility standard is not
26
akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a
27
defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. A complaint may be dismissed as a matter of
28
law either for lack of a cognizable legal theory or for insufficient facts under a
–3–
15cv165
1
cognizable theory. Robertson v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 749 F.2d 530, 534 (9th
2
Cir. 1984).
3
Generally, courts may not consider material outside the complaint when ruling
4
on a motion to dismiss. Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d
5
1542, 1555 n.19 (9th Cir. 1990). However, documents specifically identified in the
6
complaint whose authenticity is not questioned by parties may also be considered.
7
Fecht v. Price Co., 70 F.3d 1078, 1080 n.1 (9th Cir. 1995) (superseded by statutes on
8
other grounds). Moreover, the court may consider the full text of those documents,
9
even when the complaint quotes only selected portions. Id. It may also consider
10
material properly subject to judicial notice without converting the motion into one
11
for summary judgment. Barron v. Reich, 13 F.3d 1370, 1377 (9th Cir. 1994).
12
13
III.
DISCUSSION
14
A.
15
Defendant argues that the “fundamental flaw with all of [Plaintiffs’] criticisms
16
is that Plaintiffs seek to use state law to impose labeling requirements on CytoSport
17
that are inconsistent with federal laws and regulations.” (MTD 6, ECF No. 24-1.)
18
According to Defendant, “Plaintiffs’ claims regarding the labeling of protein and
19
glutamine content and use of the term ‘lean’ are preempted because they are not
20
consistent with the actual protocols and definitions that the FDA has established for
21
calculating and listing nutrients in the Nutrition Facts panel, and making nutrient
22
content claims.” (Id.)
23
which the Court addresses below.
Preemption
24
1.
25
Defendant advances four specific preemption arguments,
Sufficient
Plaintiffs’ Claims Regarding Testing Methodology Are
26
Defendant challenges Plaintiffs’ protein and L-glutamine claims because
27
“Plaintiffs did not employ the testing methodology mandated by FDA.” (MTD 8.)
28
Specifically, Plaintiffs’ allegations rely exclusively on testing through LabDoor.com
–4–
15cv165
1
and an “independent” source of testing which is insufficient. (Id.) Defendant claims
2
that the testing allegations are deficient because (1) they do not identify either the
3
sampling methodology used or the analytical methodology used to conduct the
4
protein calculation tests and (2) fail to allege that any of the sampling or testing
5
complies with 21 CFR 101.9(g) or 101.9(c)(7). (Id. 8-9.) For the L-glutamine claims
6
specifically, Defendant claims that there are no allegations of evidence or testing in
7
support of Plaintiffs’ claims that Defendants products “do not contain any unbonded
8
L-glutamine amino acids.” (Id. 9.)
9
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) gives power to the FDA
10
to oversee the regulation of food. One of the functions of the FDCA is to regulate
11
the branding of food. Under 21 U.S.C. § 343 (the “Food Labeling Rule”), a food is
12
considered misbranded if it does not contain a label bearing certain nutritional
13
information. § 343(q). The FDA has promulgated many regulations setting forth
14
detailed requirements that must be met in order to be in compliance with the Food
15
Labeling Rule. The FDCA also contains an express preemption provision, which
16
provides that “no State or political subdivision of a State may directly or indirectly
17
establish under any authority or continue in effect as to any food in interstate
18
commerce . . . any requirement for nutrition labeling of food that is not identical to
19
the requirement of section 343(q) of this title.” 21 U.S.C. § 343-1(a)(4).
20
Specific requirements for compliance with the Food Labeling Rule are set out
21
in 21 C.F.R. § 101.9(g). It states that “compliance [with the Food Labeling Rule]
22
shall be determined” using a “sample for nutrient analysis [consisting] of a composite
23
of 12 subsamples (consumer units), taken 1 from each of 12 different randomly
24
chosen shipping cases, to be representative of a lot.” § 101.9(g)(2). This composite
25
is then “analyzed by appropriate methods as given in the ‘Official Methods of
26
Analysis of the AOAC International,’ 15th Ed. (1990) . . . or, if no AOAC method is
27
available or appropriate, by other reliable and appropriate analytical procedures.” Id.
28
For foods with naturally occurring nutrients, the nutrient content of the composite
–5–
15cv165
1
must equal at least 80 percent of the value for the nutrient as declared on the label. §
2
101.9(g)(4)(ii). For foods where a nutrient is not naturally occurring, but instead
3
added to the food, “the nutrient content of the composite [must be] at least equal to
4
the value for that nutrient declared on the label.” § 101.9(g)(4)(i).
5
According to Defendant, Plaintiffs allegations are insufficient because they fail
6
to allege that Defendant’s protein claims were tested in accordance with the
7
methodology mandated by the FDA under § 101.9(g). Specifically, there are no
8
allegations that the sample forming the basis of the testing results consisted of a
9
composite of twelve subsamples taken from each of twelve different randomly
10
chosen shipping cases, or that the sample analyzed under the AOAC method or
11
another appropriate substitute.
12
the standard that the FDA holds Defendant to, the Court finds that Plaintiffs
13
allegations are sufficient at this point in the proceedings.
While the Court agrees with Defendant that this is
14
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant provides less protein than that advertised on its
15
Muscle Milk RTD Products’ labels. (Compl. ¶¶ 15-29.) These allegations are
16
supported by factual allegations based on multiple sources. (Id. ¶¶17-21.) Plaintiffs
17
are not required to recite the exact statutory provisions that they claim are violated.
18
It is clear from the Complaint that Plaintiffs’ position is that the protein labeling and
19
content combinations Defendant uses violate the FDCA, and that this position is
20
supported by Labdoor and “independent” testing results. In fact, Defendant does not
21
dispute that these allegations give notice to Plaintiffs’ position. Thus, the Court finds
22
that the allegations are sufficient to state a plausible claim.
23
Defendant challenges the allegations because they do not identify the type of
24
testing Labdoor and the “independent testing” employed. This argument is not
25
appropriate for a motion to dismiss. Of course, in order to ultimately prevail on these
26
claims, Plaintiffs will have to prove that Defendant did not comply with the FDCA
27
provisions listed above. However, to state a claim, Plaintiffs only need to allege a
28
plausible violation of the FDCA. Therefore, the motion to dismiss based on failure
–6–
15cv165
1
to allege compliance with the procedures in § 101.9(g) is DENIED1.
2
2.
Plaintiffs’ Protein Claims and “Safe Harbor” Tolerances
3
Defendant next argues that even if Plaintiffs sufficiently allege a violation of
4
the FDCA with respect to testing procedures, their claims fail because “their own
5
testing demonstrates that four of the five ready-to-drink Products are within FDA-
6
allowed tolerances.” (MTD 10.) Specifically, Defendant argues that because the
7
protein in their products qualify as Class II nutrients, Defendant’s four products that
8
contain 80% or more of the protein value declared on the label comply with the
9
FDCA. (Id.) Plaintiffs argue that the protein in Defendant’s products is properly
10
classified as a Class I nutrient, which means that all of Defendant’s products fail to
11
comply with the FDCA requirement that labels contain 100% of the protein value
12
claimed for Class I nutrients. (Opp’n 6-8). The success of Defendant’s argument
13
turns on whether or not the protein in its products qualifies as a Class I or Class II
14
nutrient.
15
A Class II nutrient is a “[n]aturally occurring (indigenous) nutrient[].” §
16
101.9(g)(3)(ii). A Class I nutrient is an “[a]dded nutrient[]in fortified or fabricated
17
foods.” § 101.9(g)(3)(i). Defendant’s motion includes no argument as to why the
18
protein in question here qualifies as a Class II nutrient. Instead, Defendant simply
19
concludes that the protein here belongs in Class II, and launches into analysis of the
20
Class II nutrient safe harbor. However, as Plaintiff points out, the Complaint provides
21
factual allegations that the protein in question here is a Class I nutrient added for
22
fortification. (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 17-21, 36.) Because Defendant fails to show that it is
23
entitled to the safe harbor2, the motion is DENIED.
24
25
26
27
28
Defendant also challenges the sufficiently of Plaintiffs allegations regarding Lglutamine content. However, at this stage of the proceedings, the Court finds that
Plaintiffs’ allegations that they tested the products and found no unbonded Lglutamine in the products sufficient to put Defendant on notice of their claim.
2
The Court notes that it is unclear, from both the parties’ briefs and a reading of
101.9(g), how a nutrient’s Class I or Class II membership is to be determined. The
1
–7–
15cv165
1
3.
2
Labeling Requirements
Plaintiffs’ L-Glutamine Claims and Conflicting FDA
3
Defendant also moves to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims regarding the alleged
4
failure to properly label L-glutamine as an ingredient in Defendant’s products. (MTD
5
11-12.) Specifically, Defendant suggests that it is entitled to include L-glutamine
6
within the ingredients of its proprietary “Protein Blend” and need not list it as a
7
separate ingredient. (Id.) Plaintiff claims that labeling L-glutamine as an ingredient
8
in the “Protein Blend” misleads consumers because it implies that free-form or
9
unbonded L-glutamine will be included in the products, which it is not. (Opp’n 12.)
10
The parties appear to argue past each other on this issue. Defendant claims
11
that it is entitled to list L-glutamine as an ingredient in its “Protein Blend,” citing 21
12
CFR 101.4(b)(2)(i). Plaintiffs do not contest this point. Instead, their Complaint
13
alleges that by including L-glutamine as an ingredient in its “Protein Blend,”
14
Defendant is misleading consumers into thinking that the product includes unbonded
15
or free-form L-glutamine. This is a problem, according to the Complaint, because
16
unbonded L-glutamine provides more benefit to consumers than L-glutamine that is
17
part of a protein blend. (Compl. ¶¶ 31-35.) So, according to the Complaint, bonded
18
and unbonded L-glutamine are distinct ingredients, and if L-glutamine is listed as an
19
ingredient in the Protein Blend, consumers will assume it is unbonded, even though
20
there is allegedly no unbonded L-glutamine in the products. These allegations, taken
21
as true, state a claim for violation of 21 U.S.C. § 343(a)(1). Therefore, the motion is
22
DENIED on this ground3.
23
//
24
//
25
26
27
28
Ninth Circuit has addressed this issue, at least in passing, on one previous occasion.
See CreAgri, Inc. v. USANA Health Sciences, Inc., 474 F.3d 626, 631 (9th Cir.
2007). At this point in the proceedings, the Court need not reach this issue.
3
Of course, in order to prevail, Plaintiffs will need to substantiate their claims that
such a labeling practice is misleading to consumers, among other things.
–8–
15cv165
1
4.
“Lean Muscle” and “Lean Lipids™” Claims
2
Defendant next argues that Plaintiffs’ “lean” claims fail because Defendant
3
does not use the word “lean” to make a nutrient content claim, but instead uses it as
4
a “descriptor modifying the type of muscle the Products help develop in consumers,
5
in combination with exercise: lean muscle.” (MTD 12-13.) According to Defendant,
6
“lean” is “not used to characterize the level or amount of fat, fatty acid or cholesterol
7
in the Products.” (Id. at 13.) Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s use of “lean” is still
8
governed by the FDCA labeling requirements for statements that “implicitly
9
characterize the level of a nutrient.” (Opp’n 14.)
10
Section 343(r) discusses “nutrition levels and health-related claims” about a
11
food product made anywhere on a product label. This provision governs
12
all voluntary statements about nutrient content or health information a manufacturer
13
chooses to include on a food label or packaging. Specifically, the section covers
14
claims that “expressly or by implication,” “characterize [ ] the level of any nutrient,”
15
or “characterize[ ] the relationship of any nutrient ... to a disease or health related
16
condition....”
17
regarding three specific kinds of claims: express nutrient content claims; implied
18
nutrient content claims; and health claims. See 21 C.F.R. §§ 101.13, 101.14. An
19
express nutrient content claim is a direct statement about the level or range of a
20
nutrient in a food, like “100 calories.” A purveyor may include such a claim so long
21
as it “does not in any way implicitly characterize the level of the nutrient in the food
22
and it is not false or misleading in any respect (e.g., ‘100 calories’ or ‘5 grams of
23
fat’), in which case no disclaimer is required.” 21 C.F.R. § 101.13(i)(3).
21 U.S.C. § 342(r)(1).
The FDA has promulgated regulations
24
An implied nutrient content claim describes food or an ingredient in a manner
25
that suggests that a nutrient is absent or present in a certain amount, such as “high in
26
oat bran.” An implied content claim might also make a comparative statement, like
27
“contains as much fiber as an apple,” or might suggest that the product is consistent
28
with a nutritional or healthy diet. See 21 C.F.R. § 101.13(b)(2)(i)-(ii). Notably, the
–9–
15cv165
1
section prohibits the use of certain terms—such as “free,” “low,” or “good source”—
2
that characterize the level or range of any nutrient in a food unless these terms
3
conform to definitions established by the Secretary. 21 C.F.R. § 101.13(b)(1).
4
Finally, a health claim is one that specifically “characterizes the relationship of any
5
substance to a disease or health-related condition.” 21 C.F.R. § 101.14. A food
6
purveyor may include implicit content claims so long as they are “consistent with a
7
definition for a claim,” as provided in a federal regulation.
8
Here, Plaintiffs claim that Defendant’s use of “lean” is not consistent with 21
9
C.F.R. 101.62(e), which establishes nutrient content requirements for “lean” and
10
“extra lean” claims in terms of the acceptable “level of fat, fatty acid, and cholesterol
11
in a food.” Defendant does not argue that their products comply with this regulation,
12
but that Plaintiffs fail to allege a violation of this regulation because using the term
13
“lean” is not a nutrient content claim. The Court disagrees, as the statement “Lean
14
Muscle Protein Powder” could plausibly convey that the Products contain a low
15
amount of fat. The Court’s conclusion is only bolstered by Defendant’s use of the
16
unregistered trademark “Lean Lipids.” Lipids are fatty acids, and the use of the word
17
“lean” in conjunction with the term “lipids” plausibly conveys that the Products
18
contain a low amount of fatty acid. Defendant’s reliance on Craig v. Twinings North
19
America, Inc., 14-cv-5214, 2015 WL 505867 (W.D. Ark. Feb. 5, 2015), is unavailing.
20
That case did not involve a nutrient level claim, as the litigation centered on the claim
21
that the Defendant’s tea was a “source” of “antioxidants.” Unlike the term “source,”
22
the term “lean” describes the Products in a manner that suggests they contain a certain
23
amount, namely low levels, of fat and fatty acids. (Id. at * 7.) Therefore, the motion
24
is DENIED.
25
B.
26
Defendant argues that this Court should dismiss this case under the primary
27
28
Primary Jurisdiction Doctrine
jurisdiction doctrine. However, application of this doctrine is inappropriate here.
In applying the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, courts “traditionally look for
– 10 –
15cv165
1
four factors identified in General Dynamics. Under this test, the doctrine applies
2
where there is ‘(1) the need to resolve an issue that (2) has been placed by Congress
3
within the jurisdiction of an administrative body having regulatory authority (3)
4
pursuant to a statute that subjects an industry or activity to a comprehensive
5
regulatory scheme that (4) requires expertise or uniformity in administration.’” Davel
6
Commc’ns, Inc. v. Qwest Corp., 460 F.3d 1075, 1086-87 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting
7
United States v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 828 F.2d 1356, 1362 (9th Cir. 1987)).
8
Although Congress has likely placed the issue of product labeling and warning
9
requirements within the broadly defined jurisdiction of the FDA to generally oversee,
10
the issues facing the Court do not appear to “require [FDA] expertise or uniformity
11
in administration.” Id. “Without question, the FDA has extensively regulated food
12
labeling... Nonetheless, plaintiffs advance a relatively straightforward claim: they
13
assert that defendant has violated [state] regulations and marketed a product that
14
could mislead a reasonable consumer. As courts faced with state-law challenges in
15
the food labeling arena have reasoned, this is a question ‘courts are well-equipped to
16
handle.’” See Chacanaca v. Quaker Oats Co., 752 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1124 (N.D.
17
Cal. 2010) (quoting Lockwood v. Conagra Foods, Inc., 597 F. Supp. 2d 1028 (N.D.
18
Cal. 2009)). Defendant “has given no reason why determining whether a label is
19
misleading is outside the ability of the court.” Morgan v. Wallaby Yogurt Co., Inc.,
20
No. 13-CV-00296-WHO, 2013 WL 5514563, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2013).
21
Therefore, the motion is DENIED on this ground.
22
C.
23
As explained above, the Court finds the allegations surrounding the terms
24
“lean” and “Lean Lipids” plausible. Therefore, Defendant’s motion to dismiss based
25
on Plaintiffs’ purported failure to state a claim regarding “lean” claims is DENIED.
26
//
27
//
28
//
“Lean” Allegations and the Reasonable Consumer
– 11 –
15cv165
Lack of Standing for Products Plaintiffs Did Not Purchase
1
D.
2
Defendant next argues that Plaintiffs lack standing to sue with regard to
3
products that they did not purchase. The Court disagrees at this stage of the
4
proceedings.
5
There are court decisions going both ways on this issue, with some finding that
6
a plaintiff has no standing to pursue claims based on products he or she did not
7
purchase. See, e.g., Granfield v. NVIDIA Corp., No. C 11-05403 JW, 2012 WL
8
2847575, at *6 (N.D. Cal. July, 11 2012). However, “[t]he majority of the courts that
9
have carefully analyzed the question hold that a plaintiff may have standing to assert
10
claims for unnamed class members based on products he or she did not purchase so
11
long as the products and alleged misrepresentations are substantially similar.” Miller
12
v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co., 912 F. Supp. 2d 861, 869 (N.D. Cal. 2012). Further,
13
some courts have held that “the issue of whether a class representative may be
14
allowed to present claims on behalf of others who have similar, but not identical,
15
interests depends not on standing, but on an assessment of typicality and adequacy of
16
representation” at the class certification stage. Bruno v. Quten Research Inst., LLC,
17
280 F.R.D. 524, 530 (C.D. Cal. 2011). The Court will revisit this issue at the class
18
certification stage in determining whether a class can be certified and, if so, the
19
“contours of that class.” See Dorsey v. Rockhard Laboratories, LLC, No. CV 13-
20
07557 DDP RZX, 2014 WL 4678969, at * 4 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2014).
21
In light of the alleged similarity of ingredients, labels, and misrepresentations
22
at issue in this case, (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 16, 17-21, 36-37, 45), the Court refuses to dismiss
23
the class claims for lack of standing. Therefore, the motion is DENIED on this
24
ground.
25
E.
26
Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiffs’ express warranty claim because the
27
“warranty” for “the protein and L-glutamine amounts was not breached.” (MTD 19-
28
20) However, as noted above, Plaintiffs have sufficiently plead that the products do
Warranty Claims
– 12 –
15cv165
1
not contain the amount of protein or L-Glutamine that Defendant warranted.
2
Finally, Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiffs’ MMWA claims because (1)
3
there must be 100 named plaintiffs in an MMWA class action, (2) the MMWA does
4
not apply because the label statements are allowed or required by federal law and do
5
not consist of promises that the product is defect free or guarantees a level of
6
performance over time, and (3) because Plaintiffs’ express warranty claim fails.
7
(MTD 20.)
8
First, CAFA jurisdiction, which is invoked here, includes class actions filed
9
pursuant to the MMWA that fail to meet the one hundred plaintiff requirement. In re
10
Sony Vaio Computer Notebook Trackpad Litigation, 9cv2109 BEN (RBB), 2010 WL
11
4262191 * 4 (Oct. 28, 2010)(collecting cases). Second, as explained above, the Court
12
finds that Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that the stated amounts of protein and L-
13
glutamine are inaccurate. Third, the Court has found that Plaintiffs’ express warranty
14
is still viable. Therefore, the motion on these grounds is DENIED.
15
16
IV.
CONCLUSION & ORDER
17
The Court DENIES the motion.
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
20
21
DATED: August 19, 2015
M. James Lorenz
United States District Judge
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
– 13 –
15cv165
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?