703 F. App'x 468
9th Cir.2017Background
- Plaintiff Natalia Bruton sued Gerber alleging certain baby‑food labels made nutrient/sugar claims that violated FDA regulations incorporated into California law and were misleading.
- District court dismissed several claims (including unjust enrichment), denied class certification, denied Bruton’s partial summary judgment, and granted summary judgment to Gerber on UCL/FAL/CLRA deception and UCL unlawful claims.
- Bruton appealed; Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 1332(d).
- The Ninth Circuit considered changes and clarifications in California law and Ninth Circuit precedent issued after the district court’s rulings.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed dismissal of unjust enrichment and the denial of class certification, affirmed summary judgment for Gerber on deception claims (UCL/FAL/CLRA), and reversed summary judgment for Gerber on the UCL unlawful prong.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether unjust enrichment claim could proceed | Bruton: unjust enrichment is a standalone claim under California law | Gerber: dismissal proper because unjust enrichment not independent | Reversed — California precedent allows independent unjust enrichment; remand to assess other pleading defects |
| Whether class is ascertainable / administratively feasible | Bruton: class can be defined and certified | Gerber: class not ascertainable / administratively feasible | Reversed — post‑ruling Ninth Circuit precedent rejects separate administrative‑feasibility requirement; remand for certification analysis |
| Whether labels were deceptive (UCL/FAL/CLRA) | Bruton: combination of Gerber’s claims and competitors’ lack of similar claims misleads reasonable consumers | Gerber: labels not deceptive; evidence insufficient (competitor labels similar; plaintiff testimony weak; FDA letters nonbinding) | Affirmed — no genuine dispute of material fact that a reasonable consumer was likely deceived |
| Whether labels were unlawful under UCL (unlawful prong) | Bruton: violation of California Sherman Law (incorporating FDA regs) supports UCL unlawful claim without reasonable‑consumer showing | Gerber: unlawful prong requires reasonable‑consumer showing because it involves labeling deception | Reversed — reasonable‑consumer test applies only when predicate law requires it; Sherman Law/FDA regs don’t require deception, so unlawful claim survives |
Key Cases Cited
- Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. J.R. Mktg., L.L.C., 61 Cal. 4th 988 (California Supreme Court) (recognizes independent unjust enrichment claim)
- Ghirardo v. Antonioli, 14 Cal. 4th 39 (California Supreme Court) (earlier recognition of unjust enrichment in real estate context)
- Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 844 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2017) (no separate administrative‑feasibility requirement for class certification)
- Lavie v. Procter & Gamble Co., 105 Cal. App. 4th 496 (Cal. Ct. App.) (literally true statements can still be misleading)
- Leoni v. State Bar, 39 Cal. 3d 609 (California Supreme Court) (omission of necessary fact can make truthful advertising misleading)
- F.T.C. v. Neovi, Inc., 604 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2010) (plaintiff testimony may be self‑serving and insufficient to show deception)