Axon v. Citrus World, Inc.
354 F. Supp. 3d 170
| E.D.N.Y | 2018Background
- Plaintiff Alexandra Axon (NY) purchased Florida's Natural orange juice and alleges she relied on the brand name "Florida's Natural."
- Laboratory testing showed trace glyphosate in the products at levels well below federal tolerance; plaintiff alleges the presence of glyphosate makes the "natural" branding deceptive.
- Plaintiff asserts class claims: NY GBL §§ 349 and 350 (New York subclass) and nationwide claims for breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment.
- Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (standing) and for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6); also argued FDCA preemption and other defenses.
- Court found Article III and statutory standing adequate (plaintiff alleged economic injury/premium paid) but granted dismissal on the merits for failure to state a claim.
- Court concluded a reasonable consumer would not plausibly interpret the brand name "Florida's Natural" to mean the juice contains zero trace glyphosate; warranty and unjust enrichment claims likewise dismissed. Plaintiff was given leave to move to amend within 10 days but court signaled likely futility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing (Article III & statutory) | Axon paid a price premium and thus suffered economic injury; seeks damages and injunctive relief | No cognizable injury; cannot seek injunction because she knows of the alleged misrepresentation | Standing to pursue damages and statutory claims was sufficient; injunctive-standing left undecided as merits dispositive |
| FDCA preemption | Challenges only the use of the term "natural," not seeking mandatory glyphosate disclosure | FDCA/NLEA and pesticide tolerances preempt state-law claims and would conflict with federal labeling scheme | Claims are not preempted: FDA has not defined "natural," plaintiff does not seek disclosure, and removing "natural" would not conflict with federal law |
| NY GBL §§ 349 & 350 (consumer deception) | Reasonable consumers expect "natural" juice to be free of synthetic glyphosate; labeling is materially misleading | A reasonable consumer would expect trace pesticide residues from modern agriculture; "natural" brand name is not a factual warranty of zero traces | Dismissed: not plausible that a reasonable consumer would conclude the brand means absolute absence of trace glyphosate (labels not misleading as pleaded) |
| Breach of express warranty & unjust enrichment | Brand name created an affirmation of fact relied upon in purchase | Brand name is a general marketing statement not a factual promise; unjust enrichment duplicates other claims | Dismissed: no plausible express warranty under reasonable-consumer standard; unjust enrichment duplicative and unavailable |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (Article III standing requires injury in fact, causation, and redressability)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state a plausible claim to survive dismissal)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (conclusory allegations insufficient; courts must identify plausible claims)
- Oswego Laborers' Local 214 Pension Fund v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A., 85 N.Y.2d 20 (1995) (NY reasonable-consumer standard for deceptive acts)
- Strubel v. Comenity Bank, 842 F.3d 181 (2d Cir. 2016) (standing evaluated for each claim; pleading standards for Article III injury)