Grossman v. Simply Nourish Pet Food Company LLC
516 F.Supp.3d 261
E.D.N.Y2021Background
- Plaintiff Alexa Grossman, a New York resident, sued Simply Nourish and PetSmart alleging pet food labeled "Natural" or "Natural Wholesome Ingredients" actually contained synthetic ingredients (e.g., certain vitamins, minerals, preservatives). She purchased two Simply Nourish products and seeks class relief for New York purchasers.
- Claims: violations of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law §§ 349 and 350 (consumer deception/false advertising), breach of express warranty (state law), Magnuson‑Moss Warranty Act (MMWA), and unjust enrichment. Remedies sought included injunctive and declaratory relief and monetary damages.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (6), arguing no deception, lack of standing for injunctive relief and for unpurchased products, failure to provide pre‑suit notice for warranty, MMWA inapplicability, and duplicative unjust enrichment claim.
- Court accepted plaintiff’s factual allegations as true for the motion, considered AAFCO guidance (industry, not binding) and USDA draft guidance (not directly applicable), and reviewed label language including the qualifier "with added vitamins and minerals."
- Decision: motion granted in part and denied in part. The court dismissed claims for injunctive relief, MMWA, express warranty (for failure to plead pre‑suit notice) and unjust enrichment (duplicative), but denied dismissal of GBL §§ 349 and 350 claims and denied dismissal of class standing for unpurchased products (without prejudice).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to seek injunctive relief | Grossman alleges she might buy again if labels/ingredients changed; seeks injunctive relief to prevent future deception | Defendants: past purchasers lack Article III standing for forward‑looking relief because there is no imminent risk of future deception | Held: No standing for injunctive relief; past harm only, future harm speculative (Berni controlling) |
| Standing for unpurchased products (class standing) | Labels on unpurchased products are substantially similar; Grossman can represent class | Defendants: plaintiff didn’t buy most of the ~99 varieties and lacks standing for those products | Held: Denied without prejudice; plaintiff plausibly alleges similarity; issue reserved for class certification |
| GBL §§ 349 & 350 (labeling deception) | "Natural" combined with qualifier could be read to mean vitamins/minerals are natural; ingredient list and product qualifiers do not foreclose deception | Defendants: labeling complies with AAFCO guidance; qualifier and ingredient list cure any potential confusion | Held: Dismissal denied; reasonable‑consumer question; AAFCO guidance not dispositive; qualifier and ingredient list are factual issues for discovery |
| Breach of express warranty (state law) | "Natural" is a product description/basis of the bargain; plaintiff relied on it | Defendants: "Natural" (especially when qualified) is not an affirmation of fact; plus plaintiff failed to provide pre‑suit notice | Held: Claim plausibly pleaded on the merits but dismissed without prejudice for failure to plead pre‑suit notice; leave to amend |
| MMWA claim | Parallel to express warranty; plaintiff treats label as a written warranty | Defendants: MMWA requires a written warranty promising defect‑free or performance over time; "Natural" is not that | Held: Dismissed with prejudice; "Natural" does not meet MMWA written‑warranty definition |
| Unjust enrichment | Equitable claim to recover benefit defendants obtained by allegedly deceptive sales | Defendants: claim duplicates statutory and warranty claims | Held: Dismissed as duplicative of other New York law claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (application of plausibility standard)
- Berni v. Barilla S.p.A., 964 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 2020) (past purchasers generally lack standing to seek injunction absent likelihood of future harm)
- NECA‑IBEW Health & Welfare Fund v. Goldman Sachs & Co., 693 F.3d 145 (2d Cir. 2012) (class standing requires plaintiff’s injury and that challenged conduct implicate same concerns as to class)
- Fink v. Time Warner Cable, 714 F.3d 739 (2d Cir. 2013) (reasonable‑consumer standard for deceptive acts under GBL)
- Maurizio v. Goldsmith, 230 F.3d 518 (2d Cir. 2000) (elements of a GBL § 349 claim)
- Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975) (standing is a jurisdictional requirement)
- DiFolco v. MSNBC Cable L.L.C., 622 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2010) (materials incorporated by reference may be considered on a motion to dismiss)