908 F. Supp. 2d 1090
C.D. Cal.2012Background
- Consolidation of multiple cases against ConAgra Foods, Inc. following prior dismissal of a related Briseno case for Rule 9(b) pleading deficiencies.
- ConAgra moved to dismiss the consolidated class action alleging deceptive marketing of Wesson Oils as “100% Natural” despite GMO ingredients.
- Plaintiffs seek a nationwide class under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and Nebraska consumer protection laws, plus Nebraska and other state law subclasses.
- Plaintiffs allege that the label and advertising representations misled consumers into paying a premium for a product they believe is GMO-free.
- The court analyzes Rule 9(b) pleading particularity, Rule 12(b)(6) standards, and state and federal liability theories, with leave to amend where indicated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 9(b) sufficiency for fraud allegations | Plaintiffs contend they pled where, what, when, who, and how, with labeling examples. | ConAgra argues the complaint lacks specific details on misrepresentation content and timing. | Rule 9(b) satisfied; complaint provides sufficient particularity to proceed. |
| Magnuson-Moss Act claim viability | Wesson’s ‘100% Natural’ label may violate warranty-related provisions. | Labeling of ‘100% Natural’ is not a written warranty; may be limited to implied warranties. | First (written warranty) claim dismissed with leave to amend; implied warranty claim may be viable on amendment. |
| Nebraska Consumer Protection Act applicability | Nebraska act applies to misbranding practices in consumer markets. | FD A-regulated labeling may preempt Nebraska Act; FDA regulates labeling extensively. | Second cause of action dismissed with prejudice due to FDA regulation; Nebraska Act does not apply. |
| Nebraska Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act viability | Act covers deceptive trade practices; plaintiffs seek damages for future harm. | Act provides relief for future damage but not past harm; amendment futile. | Third cause of action dismissed with prejudice. |
| Unjust enrichment as a separate claim | Plaintiffs plead unjust enrichment under multiple state theories. | Some states do not recognize independent unjust enrichment claims." | California claim dismissed with prejudice; Texas and Illinois claims remain viable as state-law theories; others may proceed consistent with restitution under other claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1988) (standard for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal: lack of cognizable legal theory or insufficient facts)
- Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336 (9th Cir. 1996) (requirement to plead facts plausibly; avoid conclusory allegations)
- Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) (illustrates Rule 9(b) pleading specificity and timing requirements)
- In re GlenFed Securities Litig., 42 F.3d 1541 (9th Cir. 1994) (en banc decision on pleading fraud with particularity)
- Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litig., 754 F.Supp.2d 1145 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (illustrates pleading standards for misrepresentation claims)
- Pom Wonderful LLC v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc., 642 F.Supp.2d 1112 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (location and timing of allegedly misleading claims on labels)
- Von Koenig v. Snapple Beverage Corp., 713 F.Supp.2d 1066 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (adequacy of Rule 9(b) pleading where misrepresentations appear on product labels)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleading claims)
- Twombly v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a claim with facial plausibility)
- Smajlaj v. Campbell Soup Co., 782 F.Supp.2d 84 (D.N.J. 2011) (ascertainable loss pleading standards under some states)
- Lieberson v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., 865 F.Supp.2d 529 (D.N.J. 2011) (ascertainable loss analysis in consumer-protection context)