Ham v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc.
70 F. Supp. 3d 1188
N.D. Cal.2014Background
- Plaintiff Ana Belen Ham purchased Earth’s Best Organic Mini Waffles labeled “All Natural” and alleges they contain sodium acid pyrophosphate (SAPP), a synthetic leavening agent.
- Ham brings claims under California statutes and common law: CLRA, FAL, UCL, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of express warranty, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment; she seeks class certification.
- Hain moved to dismiss, challenging deception, pleading particularity, privity for contract, availability of unjust enrichment, injunctive standing, website-based claims, and invoking primary jurisdiction of the FDA.
- The ingredient list on the packaging discloses SAPP; USDA regulations permit SAPP in organic products.
- The court held that Ham plausibly alleged that a reasonable consumer could be misled by an “All Natural” label that contains SAPP, denied most dismissal grounds, and granted dismissal of several claims/relief (see holdings).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a reasonable consumer would be deceived by “All Natural” labeling | “All Natural” implies no synthetic ingredients; SAPP is synthetic so label is misleading | Term is undefined; consumers expect some processing; USDA allows SAPP in organic foods; ingredient list discloses SAPP | Denied dismissal — plausible that reasonable consumer would not expect SAPP; question is factual, not resolved on 12(b)(6) |
| Fraud and related claims pleading under Rule 9(b) | Complaint specifies who, what, when, where, how (labels, purchases, dates, reliance) | Complaint too vague as to which products | Denied — allegations meet Rule 9(b) particularity for claims based on SAPP in “All Natural” products |
| Breach of express warranty | Label creates an express warranty that Waffles contain no SAPP | “All Natural” meets reasonable consumer expectations; no breach | Denied — warranty claim plausibly pleaded for same reasons as consumer-protection claims |
| Breach of contract (privity) | Exceptions to privity apply | No privity; exceptions don’t apply here | Granted dismissal without leave to amend — no privity and exceptions inapplicable |
| Unjust enrichment / quasi-contract as independent claim | Seeks restitution for monies paid | Not an independent cause of action | Granted dismissal without leave to amend — unjust enrichment not standalone under California law |
| Standing for injunctive relief | Seeks injunction and damages | Plaintiff now knows of SAPP and won't be misled again | Granted dismissal of injunctive relief without leave to amend — no likelihood of future deception |
| Primary jurisdiction (FDA) | N/A | FDA is best authority to define “natural” | Denied — FDA declining to define term and courts routinely adjudicate such disputes |
| Standing to challenge website / Facebook ads | Challenges broader advertising | Plaintiff never saw website/Facebook statements | Granted dismissal without leave to amend as to website/Facebook-based claims — no standing to challenge statements she did not view |
Key Cases Cited
- Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 2008) (pleading standard—accept factual allegations as true on Rule 12(b)(6))
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state a plausible claim to survive dismissal)
- Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2003) (Rule 9(b) particularity for fraud)
- Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2008) (reasonable consumer standard for food labeling and misleading packaging)
- Burr v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 42 Cal.2d 682 (Cal. 1954) (foodstuffs exception to privity for implied warranty of fitness)
- Bates v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 511 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2007) (standing requires likelihood of future harm for injunctive relief)
- Hodgers-Durgin v. de la Vina, 199 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 1999) (class representatives must themselves have standing to seek injunctive relief)