Ibarrola v. Kind, LLC
83 F. Supp. 3d 751
N.D. Ill.2015Background
- Plaintiff Rochelle Ibarrola purchased Kind Healthy Grains Vanilla Blueberry Clusters twice in 2013; the front label stated “no refined sugars,” while the ingredient list disclosed evaporated cane juice and molasses.
- Ibarrola alleges evaporated cane juice and molasses are refined sugars, so the “no refined sugars” claim was false and induced her to pay a premium.
- She filed a putative class action asserting ICFA, common-law fraud, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment; an earlier complaint was dismissed and she filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC).
- Kind moved to dismiss the FAC under Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b), arguing the label was not misleading and that Ibarrola failed to give pre-suit notice for the express warranty claim.
- The district court held that a reasonable consumer would not be deceived given the ingredient disclosure and general understanding that sugar-cane sweeteners undergo processing; it also found Ibarrola failed to provide the pre-litigation notice required for an express warranty claim.
- The court dismissed all claims with prejudice (fraud/ICFA, express warranty, unjust enrichment) as futile to replead.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the “no refined sugars” label was deceptive under ICFA/common-law fraud | "No refined sugars" meant only naturally occurring, unrefined sugars; reasonable consumers would be misled | The label plus ingredient list (evaporated cane juice, molasses) would not deceive a reasonable consumer; sugar-cane sweeteners are known to be processed | Dismissed — not plausibly deceptive as a matter of law |
| Whether plaintiff adequately pleaded fraud with particularity under Rule 9(b) | Alleged who, what, when (purchases), and why statement was false | Statement was not misleading; contradictions between label and ingredient list make alleged belief implausible | Dismissed — heightened pleading not satisfied because claim itself is implausible |
| Whether express warranty claim survives given pre-suit notice requirement | Plaintiff contends earlier filings provided sufficient notice | Kind argues plaintiff failed to notify within a reasonable time as required by Illinois UCC §2-607 | Dismissed with prejudice — no pre-suit notice; no excuse alleged for failure |
| Whether unjust enrichment survives if fraud/warranty claims fail | Unjust enrichment available as alternative restitution | Unjust enrichment cannot stand absent deception and cannot be a standalone remedy | Dismissed — fails without underlying fraud/warranty claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint requires factual plausibility standard)
- Oshana v. Coca-Cola Co., 472 F.3d 506 (7th Cir.) (elements of ICFA claim)
- Bober v. Glaxo Wellcome PLC, 246 F.3d 934 (7th Cir.) (dismissal permitted where statement not misleading as a matter of law)
- Camasta v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., 761 F.3d 732 (7th Cir.) (affirming dismissal with prejudice of ICFA claim after prior dismissal)
- Pelayo v. Nestle USA, Inc., 989 F. Supp. 2d 973 (C.D. Cal.) (reasonable consumer does not expect raw plant product in finished food)
- Athey Prods. Corp. v. Harris Bank Roselle, 89 F.3d 430 (7th Cir.) (elements of common-law fraud)