Holve v. Mccormick
334 F. Supp. 3d 535
W.D.N.Y.2018Background
- Plaintiff filed a putative class action alleging McCormick deceptively labeled 29 spice/seasoning products as "natural" or "with natural spices," while they contained ingredients (e.g., corn starch, white corn flour, citric acid) the complaint alleges are synthetic or derived from GMOs.
- Plaintiff alleges she purchased Herbes de Provence Roasted Chicken & Potatoes Mix ("Chicken Seasoning Mix") in New York and seeks to represent a nationwide or New York-only class from Oct. 27, 2012.
- Claims: New York GBL §§ 349, 350; unjust enrichment (New York and Maryland); Maryland Commercial Code § 13-301; injunctive and monetary relief.
- McCormick moved to dismiss and alternatively to stay the case pending FDA/USDA rulemaking on the meaning of "natural" and bioengineered-food labeling.
- The court: granted in part and denied in part McCormick's motion to dismiss, granted a limited stay (until Feb. 1, 2019), dismissed injunctive relief and certain claims for lack of standing, and allowed some class claims to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing — Chicken Seasoning Mix (individual) | Plaintiff alleged she purchased the Chicken Mix and that it contained listed non-natural ingredients, causing overpayment. | McCormick argued Plaintiff did not identify ingredients in that product or plausibly allege they were "unnatural." | Plaintiff has standing re: Chicken Seasoning Mix; individual claims based on that purchase survive. |
| Article III standing — Other Products (individual) | Plaintiff said she purchased "one or more" products and standing for other products should wait for class stage. | McCormick argued Plaintiff did not allege purchases of the other specific products. | Dismissed without prejudice for lack of individual standing as to Other Products. |
| Standing under Maryland law (individual) | Plaintiff contended misrepresentations originated from McCormick in Maryland. | McCormick argued Plaintiff, a NY resident, purchased in NY and thus lacks injury in Maryland. | Plaintiff lacks standing to assert Maryland-law claims individually; those claims dismissed without prejudice. |
| Class standing for unpurchased products | Plaintiff: her injury re: Chicken Mix implicates same concerns for class; class standing premature. | McCormick: cannot represent purchasers of products Plaintiff did not buy because labels/ingredients differ. | Plaintiff has class standing under NECA two-part test to pursue New York claims for other "natural"/"all natural" products; may re-litigate at certification. |
| Injunctive relief | Plaintiff alleges she'd buy again if labeling were truthful. | McCormick: no real or immediate threat; plaintiff will avoid future purchases unless label changes. | Injunctive relief dismissed for lack of standing; plaintiff cannot represent class for injunctive relief. |
| Federal preemption (NBFDS) | Plaintiff seeks remedies for misleading labels, not to impose a state bioengineered-labeling scheme. | McCormick argued NBFDS preempts state-law claims that would functionally require disclosure of bioengineered ingredients. | Court held state consumer-protection claims and unjust enrichment (as pleaded re: restitution) are not preempted by NBFDS. |
| Sufficiency of GBL §§ 349/350 claims | Plaintiff pleaded product labels and ingredients and alleged deception; attached ingredient lists support claims. | McCormick argued allegations about specific ingredients and their provenance are speculative. | GBL claims as to "natural" / "all natural" labels survive (factual question for later); claims tied to "with natural spices" dismissed for inadequate factual allegations. |
| Unjust enrichment (NY) | Plaintiff pleaded McCormick was unjustly enriched by misleading labeling. | McCormick: unjust enrichment duplicates GBL claims and should be dismissed. | New York unjust enrichment claim dismissed as duplicative. |
| Primary jurisdiction / stay | Plaintiff opposed delay. | McCormick sought stay pending FDA/USDA rulemaking on "natural" and bioengineered labeling. | Court granted a limited stay until Feb. 1, 2019, to await agency guidance; parties to file joint status report then. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plaintiff must plead plausible entitlement to relief)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard requires more than conclusory allegations)
- Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires injury-in-fact; pleading-stage standards)
- John v. Whole Foods Market Grp., Inc., 858 F.3d 732 (standing assessed on complaint in facial challenge)
- Carter v. HealthPort Techs., LLC, 822 F.3d 47 (plaintiff bears no evidentiary burden on facial standing challenge)
- Retirement Bd. of Policemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund of Chicago v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 775 F.3d 154 (distinguishing Article III standing and class standing)
- Hillsborough County v. Automated Medical Labs., Inc., 471 U.S. 707 (Supremacy Clause and preemption principles)