In re Milo's Dog Treats Consolidated Cases
9 F. Supp. 2d 523
W.D. Pa.2014Background
- Case referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for pretrial proceedings on August 13, 2012, under the Magistrates Act and Local Rules.
- On February 11, 2014, Magistrate Kelly issued two Reports recommending grant as to unjust enrichment claims and denial otherwise; objections were filed by defendants.
- Defendants moved to dismiss various class action claims arising from Milo’s Kitchen jerky treats; the lead plaintiffs are Funke and Ruff, who allege misbranding, contamination, and consumer deception.
- Plaintiffs assert CLRA, FAL, UCL, and unjust enrichment claims based on alleged misrepresentations on packaging and websites and on FDA/agency warnings about contamination.
- The court adopts the magistrate’s reports in part, granting dismissal of unjust enrichment claims (Count IV in Funke; Count VI in Ruff) and denying dismissal of the other claims.
- The opinions discuss parent Del Monte’s potential liability, misrepresentation theories, reliance and pleading standards (Rule 9(b)), and a Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act theory with privity considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Del Monte liability for Milo's conduct | Del Monte controls Milo’s conduct and can be liable. | Parent-subsidiary relationship alone does not give rise to liability. | Del Monte claims not dismissed; potential liability remains. |
| Validity of CLRA/FAL/UCL claims against Defendants | Misrepresentations on packaging/websites were actionable and relied upon. | Some statements are puffery and pleading insufficient under Rule 9(b). | Claims survive; 9(b) pleading and reliance satisfied. |
| Unjust Enrichment doctrine as to these Defendants | Unjust enrichment is a viable restitution theory separate from statutory claims. | Unjust enrichment is not a separate CA action and duplicative of other claims. | Unjust enrichment claims dismissed. |
| Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act viability and privity | FD exceptions allow recovery despite lack of privity because product is foodstuffs and written labels/advertising apply. | Privity required; exceptions do not apply here for animal food. | MMWA claim survives under applicable exceptions; privity issue addressed in favor of plaintiff. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bestfoods, 524 U.S. 51 (U.S. 1998) (parental liability only in unusual circumstances)
- True v. American Honda Motor Co., 520 F. Supp. 2d 1175 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (reliance and materiality under California false advertising claims)
- In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (Cal. 2009) (causation/reliance essential in California false advertising claims)
- Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4th 310 (Cal. 2011) (reliance, materiality, and inferred reliance principles for misrepresentation)
- Chacanaca v. Quaker Oats Co., 752 F. Supp. 2d 1111 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (puffery analysis in false advertising contexts)