Askin v. Quaker Oats Co.
92 A.L.R. 6th 679
N.D. Ill.2011Background
- diversity suit under ICFA and Illinois common law; Askin alleges Quaker labeled products as 0 grams trans fat, wholesome, heart healthy, misleadingly; he purchased Chewy Granola Bars and Instant Oatmeal relying on labels; seeks nationwide class; Quaker moved to dismiss under 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6); motion to dismiss under first-to-file rule; California actions involved; court denied 12(b)(1) standing, denied 12(b)(6) without prejudice pending first-to-file ruling; court discusses Aqua Dots analogy and standing theories; court reserves merits ruling pending first-to-file decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Askin have standing to sue under Article III? | Askin has concrete financial injury from premium paid. | Askin’s injury is hypothetical due to minimal trans fat; no concrete injury. | Yes, Askin has standing. |
| Is the ICFA claim inherently unripe without first-to-file ruling? | Economic injury from mislabeling supports relief under ICFA. | Standards depend on merits; standing and first-to-file control. | Denied without prejudice to refiling after first-to-file ruling. |
| Should Rule 12(b)(6) be decided before ruling on first-to-file? | Merits overlap with California actions; early ruling appropriate. | Judicial economy favors resolving first-to-file first. | Reserved; deny without prejudice pending first-to-file ruling. |
| What is the impact of the first-to-file rule on this case? | Case should proceed; not duplicative if class scope differs. | California actions preempt similar claims; duplication avoided. | Court will not resolve first-to-file issue yet; will wait. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re: Aqua Dots Products Liability Litigation, 654 F.3d 748 (7th Cir. 2011) (financial injury can support standing under Aqua Dots)
- Chacanaca v. Quaker Oats Co., 752 F. Supp. 2d 1111 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (California precluded standing arguments; premium injury suitable)
- Koronthaly v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 374 Fed. Appx. 257 (3d Cir. 2010) (lack of standing where no lead-free representation on packaging)
- Rivera v. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, 283 F.3d 315 (5th Cir. 2002) (injury from purchase without warnings; economic injury can exist)
- Hughes v. Chattem, Inc., No official reporter citation listed in text (S.D. Ind. 2011) (economic injury from reliance on misrepresentation; standing analyzed similarly to Aqua Dots)
- Morrison v. YTB Int’l, Inc., 649 F.3d 533 (7th Cir. 2011) (choice-of-law merits question; not jurisdictional standing)
- Long v. Shorebank Dev’t Corp., 182 F.3d 548 (7th Cir. 1999) (standing standards for review on Rule 12(b)(1))