393 F.Supp.3d 745
N.D. Ill.2019Background
- Plaintiffs (consumers) sued manufacturers and retailers of grated Parmesan labeled “100% Grated Parmesan Cheese,” alleging products contained non-cheese cellulose and that ingredient labels falsely stated cellulose was used only to prevent caking (it also functioned as filler).
- Early pleadings: court dismissed the "100%" label claims but allowed amended pleading; after further amendment, court again dismissed the 100% claims and narrowed the litigation to the "Anticaking" (ingredient-label) claims; some defendants (Publix; Target/ICCO) were dismissed at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage.
- Plaintiffs sought leave to file second amended complaints to add Anticaking claims against Publix and to supply cellulose-percent allegations for Target/ICCO; defendants opposed and moved on multiple grounds (standing/causation, warranty notice/privity, and statutory elements).
- Court found plaintiffs lacked alleged reliance/causal connection to the ingredient-label Anticaking statement because plaintiffs alleged they saw the front "100%" statement but not the ingredient lists; that inference drove dismissal of several state consumer-protection, warranty, and unjust-enrichment claims.
- Court denied leave to amend as to Publix and Target/ICCO as plaintiffs had the necessary information earlier and their omissions were strategic and prejudicial; granted judgment for defendants on multiple statutory and warranty claims but allowed certain unjust-enrichment and other state-law claims to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing/causation for Anticaking claims | Plaintiffs argue economic injury (overpaying) from defendants’ product representations suffices even if plaintiffs did not read ingredient panel | Kraft: no standing because plaintiffs did not see the Anticaking statement, so injury not fairly traceable to it | Court: standing satisfied for Article III (Aqua Dots theory) — price-inflation injury is traceable; but causation/reliance requirements still matter under specific state statutes |
| Leave to amend against Publix and Target/ICCO | Plaintiffs seek to add Anticaking claim for Publix and add cellulose % for Target/ICCO | Defendants: amendments should be denied as untimely, strategic, and prejudicial; prior dismissals were final | Court denied leave under Rule 15(a)(2): plaintiffs had the information earlier, omissions were strategic, and amendment would prejudice defendants |
| State consumer-protection claims (ICFA, CUTPA, MCPA) | Plaintiffs contend falsity or likelihood to mislead suffices; reliance not required under these statutes | Defendants: those statutes require proximate causation or reliance; plaintiffs did not see ingredient-label statements | Court: dismissed ICFA, CUTPA, MCPA Anticaking claims — plaintiffs failed to allege they saw the ingredient-label representation, so no proximate causation or reliance |
| Warranty claims (privity, reliance, pre‑suit notice) | Plaintiffs maintain warranties and conditions precedent were satisfied; Bloomberg publicity provided notice | Defendants (Kraft, Albertsons/SuperValu): privity and reliance required in some states; plaintiffs did not give pre-suit notice to sellers | Court: granted judgment for defendants on multiple warranty claims — plaintiff lacked privity or reliance where required and Albertsons/SuperValu lacked the kind of actual pre‑suit notice for warranty exception |
| Unjust enrichment | Plaintiffs: retain unjust-enrichment claims to recover benefit defendants retained | Defendants: unjust enrichment fails without individualized deception/causal link; express contract may preclude quasi-contract | Court: dismissed Illinois unjust-enrichment claims (Cleary rule); other states’ unjust-enrichment claims largely permitted to proceed where not precluded or argued sufficiently |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Aqua Dots Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 748 (7th Cir.) (price‑inflation theory supplies Article III standing in consumer cases)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (U.S.) (standing requires traceable and concrete injury)
- Connick v. Suzuki Motor Co., 675 N.E.2d 584 (Ill. 1996) (actual‑knowledge exception to warranty notice is narrow; requires notice of buyer’s claim about particular transaction)
- Cleary v. Philip Morris Inc., 656 F.3d 511 (7th Cir.) (unjust enrichment requires a connection between deprivation and deception or individualized injury)
- Oshana v. Coca‑Cola Co., 472 F.3d 506 (7th Cir.) (ICFA damages claim requires deception causing injury)
- Abrahams v. Young & Rubicam, Inc., 692 A.2d 709 (Conn.) (CUTPA requires plaintiff prove both prohibited act and resulting injury)