Janney v. Mills
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67187
N.D. Cal.2013Background
- plaintiffs allege Nature Valley products labeled natural contain highly processed ingredients (HFCS, HMCS, Maltodextrin) and are deceptive
- FAC asserts CLRA, UCL, FAL, and unjust enrichment claims based on misrepresentation of natural ingredients
- plaintiffs claim the term natural implies minimally processed, all-natural ingredients and no artificial additives
- marketing includes packaging, website, and social media linking Nature Valley to all-natural imagery
- General Mills moves to dismiss under 12(b)(6) for failure to plead fraud with particularity and under 12(h)(3) for primary jurisdiction
- court partly grants and partly denies the motion, allowing amendment with deadlines
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to dismiss under primary jurisdiction | plaintiffs contend FDA guidance is informal; case can proceed on state-law claims | FDA should decide the meaning of natural; federal agency expertise required | DENIED the primary jurisdiction dismissal at this stage |
| Whether Rule 9(b) requires pleading fraud with particularity | claims grounded in fraud; general pleading suffices under CLRA/UCL/FAL | Rule 9(b) requires specific misrepresentations, times, places, and actors | GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; fraud claims require particularity for online and unidentified products |
| Whether five Named Products’ claims meet Rule 9(b) requirements | purchasers relied on labeling for all Named Products | must specify each product and each supporting advertisement | SUSTAINED for Named Products; sufficient specificity to satisfy Rule 9(b) |
| Whether online sources and unidentified products can be pled under Rule 9(b) | online materials and unidentified products are within misrepresentation claims | no particularity; vague references to images do not establish misrepresentations | GRANTED dismissal for lack of particularity; those portions must be amended |
| Whether leave to amend should be granted | could cure pleading gaps with more detail | amendment would be futile for non-identifiable products | GRANTED with leave to amend; deadline set |
Key Cases Cited
- Pom Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 679 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2012) (deference to FDA when issue committed to agency expertise)
- Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) (fraud claims require Rule 9(b) pleading where relied on a fraudulent course of conduct)
- Reiter v. Cooper, 507 U.S. 258 (U.S. 1993) (primary jurisdiction is prudential; agency expertise may guide but not mandatory)
- Syntek Semiconductor v. Microchip Technology, 307 F.3d 775 (9th Cir. 2002) (syn docket factors for applying primary jurisdiction doctrine)