Bruton v. Gerber Products Co.
2013 WL 4833413
N.D. Cal.2013Background
- Bruton, a California consumer, sues Gerber and Nestlé USA for misbranding and deceptive labeling on infant/toddler foods.
- Bruton alleges nutrient-content, natural, and sugar-related label claims are unlawful under FDCA-based state laws (Sherman Law) and California consumer statutes.
- Plaintiff purchased multiple Gerber products intended for children under two in the four-year period preceding suit, relying on product labels and Gerber’s website.
- Plaintiff’s FAC asserts nine causes of action including UCL, FAL, CLRA, unjust enrichment, Song-Beverly, and MMWA claims, with nationwide and California subclass definitions.
- Defendants move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), (6), and 9(b); court treats Nestlé USA separately, discusses preemption and primary jurisdiction, standing, and each claim’s viability.
- Court grants in part and denies in part, dismissing Nestlé USA claims (with leave to amend), dismissing certain non-purchased-product and all-natural-label claims without prejudice, and dismissing MMWA, Song-Beverly, and unjust enrichment with prejudice; leaves other claims for amendment trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nestlé USA as a defendant | Bruton asserts Nestlé USA participated in labeling/marketing. | Nestlé USA is a separate entity; FAC lacks sufficient Nestlé USA-specific facts. | Claims against Nestlé USA dismissed with leave to amend. |
| FDCA/NLEA preemption | State labeling claims parallel FDA rules; not preempted. | FDCA preempts state enforcement of labeling rules. | Preemption not established at this stage; denial of preemption dismissal. |
| Primary jurisdiction | FDA guidance/letters show active enforcement context; court resolution appropriate. | FDA should resolve labeling issues; court should defer. | Primary jurisdiction denied; case proceeds in court. |
| Standing (Article III and statutory) | Plaintiff suffered injury-in-fact and reliance; economic injury from premium paid. | No standing for unpurchased products and websites; reliance adequacy questioned. | Article III standing upheld for purchased products; dismissed for unpurchased products/websites; statutory standing sustained for purchased-product claims. |
| Viability of UCL/FAL/CLRA, unjust enrichment, Song-Beverly, MMWA claims | Claims based on misbranding and deceptive labeling are actionable. | Many claims fail due to preemption, lack of standing, or non-warrantied products. | Nutrient-content “Source” and “As Healthy As Fresh” claims plausible; all-natural claims dismissed without prejudice; MMWA, Song-Beverly dismissed with prejudice; unjust enrichment dismissed with prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must show plausible claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs’ Legal Comm., 531 U.S. 341 (U.S. 2001) (preemption and fraud-on-FDA concerns)
- Pom Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 679 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2012) (preemption limits under FDCA; Lanham Act context distinct)
- Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (U.S. 2009) (federal preemption and state-law labeling considerations)
- Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470 (U.S. 1996) (presumption against preemption in health/safety regulation)
- Stengel v. Medtronic, Inc., 704 F.3d 1224 (9th Cir. 2013) (primary jurisdiction considerations in FDA labeling context)
- Perez v. Nidek Co., 711 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2013) (relevant discussion on preemption scope and FDA interpretation)
- In re Farm Raised Salmon Cases, 42 Cal.4th 1077 (Cal. 2008) (California adoption of federal labeling standards)