Certified Nutraceuticals Inc. v. The Clorox Company et al
Filing
20
ORDER Granting Defendants' Motions to Dismiss and to Strike re 13 14 . Plaintiff's prayer for punitive damages will be stricken. Plaintiff will have leave to amend the FAC in accordance with the terms of this order. Plaintiff shall file any amended pleading by Monday, October 15, 2018. Signed by Judge Thomas J. Whelan on 9/27/2018. (jao)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
CERTIFIED NUTRACEUTICALS, INC.,
12
Plaintiff,
13
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND TO
STRIKE [DOCS. 13, 14]
v.
14
Case No.: 18-CV-0744 W (KSC)
THE CLOROX COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.
15
16
17
18
Pending before the Court are a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike brought by
19
Defendants the Clorox Company, Nutranext, LLC, and Neocell Holding Company, LLC.
20
[Docs. 13, 14.] The Court decides the matters on the papers submitted and without oral
21
argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). For the reasons that follow, the Court
22
GRANTS both motions.
23
//
24
//
25
//
26
//
27
//
28
//
1
18-CV-0744 W (KSC)
1
I.
BACKGROUND1
According to the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), “[t]his lawsuit arises from
2
3
Defendants[’] deceptive marketing practices selling inferior chicken carcasses . . . .”
4
(FAC [Doc. 12] ¶ 1.) The FAC alleges that Defendants the Clorox Company (“Clorox”),
5
Neocell Holding Company, LLC (“Neocell”), and Nutranext, LLC (“Nutranext”), are
6
retailers that sell dietary supplements using the raw materials provided by Plaintiff’s
7
competitor, Avicenna Nutraceutical, LLC (“Avicenna”). (See FAC [Doc. 12] ¶¶ 21–31.)
8
9
A.
Chicken Sternum Collagen Type II
According to the FAC, Clorox, Neocell, and Nutranext “have been falsely passing
10
11
off inferior products as Chicken Sternum Collagen Type II[,]” which is contained in
12
Plaintiff’s product. (FAC [Doc. 12] ¶ 21, 27.) “Avicenna sells chicken collagen which it
13
passes off as Chicken Sternum Collagen Type II, but, in reality, is derived from Chicken
14
‘full frames.’ ” (Id. [Doc. 12] ¶ 23.) “Avicenna sold its raw materials to [Clorox,
15
Neocell, and Nutranext] at the price of $22[/]kg, however the market rate for Chicken
16
Sternum Collagen Type II is $85/kg, which provides [Clorox, Neocell, and Nutranext]
17
with an unfair competitive advantage. Avicenna and [Clorox, Neocell, and Nutranext]
18
knew, or should have known that their practices were deceptive.” (Id. [Doc. 12] ¶ 24.)
19
The FAC alleges that “[Clorox, Neocell, and Nutranext, among others] purchase
20
Avicenna’s products and in turn pass them off as Chicken Sternum Collagen Type II so
21
that they can market their respective retail products as containing the benefits of Chicken
22
Sternum Collagen Type II, when they know this is false.” (FAC [Doc. 12] ¶ 26.) It
23
alleges that this gives them an unfair competitive advantage in the marketplace and
24
decreases the demand for Chicken Sternum Collagen Type II. (Id. [Doc. 12] ¶ 27.)
25
//
26
27
28
1
The FAC alleges the following facts. [Doc. 12.]
2
18-CV-0744 W (KSC)
1
B.
2
According to the FAC, hyaluronic acid (“HA”) is a supplement derived either from
Hyaluronic Acid
3
rooster comb or biofermentation, a process using bacteria in the laboratory. (FAC [Doc.
4
12] ¶¶ 28, 30–31.) Plaintiff makes its HA products out of rooster comb, and it deems
5
those made from biofermentation “inferior.” (Id. [Doc. 12] ¶¶ 30–31.) The FAC alleges
6
that Clorox, Neocell, and Nutranext all falsely advertise their HA products as derived
7
from rooster comb, when in fact they come from biofermentation. (Id.)
8
9
II.
LEGAL STANDARDS
10
A.
11
The Court must dismiss a cause of action for failure to state a claim upon which
Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)
12
relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)
13
tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint. See Parks Sch. of Bus., Inc. v. Symington, 51
14
F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir. 1995). A complaint may be dismissed as a matter of law either
15
for lack of a cognizable legal theory or for insufficient facts under a cognizable theory.
16
Balisteri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). In ruling on the
17
motion, a court must “accept all material allegations of fact as true and construe the
18
complaint in a light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Vasquez v. L.A. Cnty.,
19
487 F.3d 1246, 1249 (9th Cir. 2007).
20
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
21
the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The Supreme Court has
22
interpreted this rule to mean that “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to
23
relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 555
24
(2007). The allegations in the complaint must “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted
25
as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ ” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
26
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
27
28
Well-pled allegations in the complaint are assumed true, but a court is not required
to accept legal conclusions couched as facts, unwarranted deductions, or unreasonable
3
18-CV-0744 W (KSC)
1
inferences. See Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986); Sprewell v. Golden State
2
Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001).
3
4
B.
5
Rule 12(f) allows a court to “strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any
6
redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). “ ‘The
7
function of a 12(f) motion to strike is to avoid the expenditure of time and money that
8
must arise from litigating spurious issues by dispensing with those issues prior to trial . . .
9
.’ ” Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 973 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting
Motion to Strike Pursuant to Rule 12(f)
10
Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 1993), overruled on other
11
grounds, Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (1994)). Motions to strike are generally
12
disfavored and are “usually . . . denied unless the allegations in the pleading have no
13
possible relation to the controversy, and may cause prejudice to one of the parties.” See
14
Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am. v. Dunmore, 2010 WL 5200940, at *3 (E.D. Cal.
15
2010).
16
Redundant matter is the needless repetition of assertions. See Travelers, 2010 WL
17
5200940, at *3. “ ‘Immaterial matter is that which has no essential or important
18
relationship to the claim for relief or the defenses being plead.’ ” Whittlestone, 618 F.3d
19
at 974 (quoting Fogerty, 984 F.2d at 1527). “Impertinent matter consists of statements
20
that do not pertain, and are not necessary, to the issues in question.” Id. (internal
21
quotation omitted). “Scandalous matters are allegations that unnecessarily reflect . . . on
22
the moral character of an individual or state . . . anything in repulsive language that
23
detracts from the dignity of the court . . . and include . . . allegations that cast a cruelly
24
derogatory light on a party or other person.” Consumer Solutions REO, LLC v. Hillery,
25
658 F. Supp. 2d 1002, 1020 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (quoting Corbell v. Norton, 224 F.R.D. 1, 5
26
(D.D.C. 2004); In re 2TheMart.com Secs. Litig., 114 F. Supp. 2d 955, 964 (C.D. Cal.
27
2000)) (internal punctuation omitted).
28
//
4
18-CV-0744 W (KSC)
1
The court may not strike from the pleadings any disputed and substantial factual or
2
legal issue. See Whittlestone, 618 F.3d at 973–74 (9th Cir. 2010). Any doubt about
3
whether the matter under attack raises a factual or legal issue should be resolved in favor
4
of the non-moving party. See id. at 975 n.2.
5
6
C.
7
“In alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the
8
circumstances constituting fraud or mistake. Malice, intent, knowledge, and other
9
conditions of a person’s mind may be alleged generally.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).
Pleading Fraud per Rule 9(b)
10
“Averments of fraud must be accompanied by ‘the who, what, when, where, and how’ of
11
the misconduct charged.” Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1106 (9th Cir.
12
2003) (quoting Cooper v. Pickett, 137 F.3d 616, 627 (9th Cir .1997)) Plaintiffs must
13
plead enough facts to give defendants notice of the time, place, and nature of the alleged
14
fraud together with an explanation of the statement and why it was false or misleading.
15
See id. at 1107. Fraud pleading must be sufficient to give defendants notice of the
16
circumstances surrounding an allegedly fraudulent statement. See In re GlenFed, Inc.
17
Sec. Litig., 42 F.3d 1541, 1547 (9th Cir.1994) (superseded by statute on other grounds as
18
stated in Ronconi v. Larkin, 253 F.3d 423, 429 n.6 (9th Cir. 2001)). Those circumstances
19
must “be specific enough to give defendants notice of the particular misconduct . . . so
20
that they can defend against the charge and not just deny that they have done anything
21
wrong.” Vess, 317 F.3d at 1106 (quoting Bly-Magee v. California, 236 F.3d 1014, 1019
22
(9th Cir. 2001)) (internal quotation marks omitted). “The complaint must specify such
23
facts as the times, dates, places, benefits received, and other details of the alleged
24
fraudulent activity.” Neubronner v. Milken, 6 F.3d 666, 672 (9th Cir. 1993).
25
//
26
//
27
//
28
//
5
18-CV-0744 W (KSC)
1
III.
2
DISCUSSION
A.
3
Motion to Dismiss
1.
Chicken Sternum Collagen Type II
Plaintiff’s Lanham Act claims are grounded in fraud and must meet Rule 9(b)’s
4
5
pleading requirements. See 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b); Bobbleheads.com,
6
LLC v. Wright Brothers, Inc., 259 F. Supp. 3d 1087, 1095 (2017) (Sammartino, J.); Vess,
7
317 F.3d at 1106.
8
Plaintiff alleges:
9
Defendants Neocell, Nutranext, and Clorox . . . have been falsely passing off
inferior products as Chicken Sternum Collagen Type II. For example,
Neocell Collagen2 Joint Complex lists as an ingredient “Sternal Chicken
Collagen,” however, independent testing has revealed the contents of this
product are not comprised of pure Sternal Chicken, but rather chicken
carcasses of inferior quality which are much more inexpensive to produce.
10
11
12
13
14
(FAC [Doc. 12] ¶ 21.)
15
Averring an example of an alleged deceptive practice is not enough to comport
16
with Rule 9. The falsehood or falsehoods in question must be alleged with
17
particularity—including the time, place, and manner of the statement/s—so that
18
defendants have notice of what was said and why it was false or misleading, and can do
19
more than “just deny that they have done anything wrong.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b);
20
Vess, 317 F.3d at 1106.
21
//
22
//
23
//
24
//
25
//
26
//
27
//
28
//
6
18-CV-0744 W (KSC)
1
2.
Hyaluronic Acid
2
The FAC alleges:
3
[Defendants Neocell, Nutranext, and Clorox] have also engaged in the false
advertising of their HA product as being derived from Rooster Comb. Again,
Defendant Neocell’s product are not comprised of Rooster Comb but of inferior
products made through Biofermentation in China.
4
5
6
(FAC [Doc. 12] ¶ 30.) This does not identify any particular misrepresentation attributed
7
to these defendants. It does not comport with the fraud pleading standard of Rule 9(b)
8
and will be dismissed on that basis.
9
10
B.
11
In opposition to the instant motion to dismiss, Plaintiff requests judicial notice as
Request for Judicial Notice
12
to several labels and advertisements—apparently sourced from photographs or printed
13
from the internet. These are not appropriate subjects for judicial notice. See Fed. R.
14
Evid. 201(b) (“The court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable
15
dispute because it . . . is generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or
16
. . . can be accurately or readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot
17
reasonably be questioned.”). The request is denied.
18
19
C.
20
Plaintiff has filed a notice of non-opposition to Defendants’ motion to strike
21
punitive damages. [Doc. 17.] The motion to strike will be granted. Plaintiff’s prayer for
22
punitive damages will be stricken.
23
//
24
//
25
//
26
//
27
//
28
//
Motion to Strike
7
18-CV-0744 W (KSC)
1
2
3
4
IV.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss and motion to strike are
both GRANTED.
Plaintiff will have leave to amend the FAC in accordance with the terms of this
5
order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) (“The court should freely give leave when justice so
6
requires.”)
7
Plaintiff shall file any amended pleading by Monday, October 15, 2018.
8
9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 27, 2018
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
18-CV-0744 W (KSC)
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?