Jones v. Conagra Foods, Inc.
912 F. Supp. 2d 889
N.D. Cal.2012Background
- Plaintiffs sued ConAgra Foods, Inc. in 2012 on behalf of themselves and others alleging deceptive labeling on PAM, Hunt's tomatoes, and Swiss Miss cocoa.
- Allegations include misbranding as 100% natural, use of organics claims with disqualifying ingredients, improper ingredient naming/listing, and unlawful health, antioxidant, freshness, and other claims.
- Class period begins in 2008 and extends through the class period; plaintiffs allege they paid a premium based on mislabeling and relied on labeling and website claims.
- ConAgra moved to dismiss the amended complaint (MTD) on multiple grounds, including preemption, primary jurisdiction, lack of stated claims, and lack of Rule 9(b) particularity.
- The court granted in part and denied in part ConAgra’s MTD, with specific dismissals and leave to amend, and defined scope for Rule 9(b) and standing analyses.
- The court also addressed warranty and unjust enrichment theories, excluding some claims while allowing others to proceed with limitations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| OFPA preemption of organic labeling claims | Organic claims not preempted; state laws align with OFPA/NOP regulations. | OFPA preempts state organic labeling claims conflicting with federal standards. | Not preempted where no conflict; organic claims survive. |
| NLEA/FDCA preemption of state tort claims | State labeling claims are not preempted and mirror federal standards. | State requirements differ from or add to FDCA/NLEA protections. | Not preempted; many claims parallel federal requirements; not expressly or conflict preempted. |
| Primary jurisdiction | FDA expertise not necessary; labeling issues require judicial resolution. | FDA expertise and uniformity warranted for labeling questions. | Not appropriate to stay/invoke FDA primary jurisdiction; court can resolve deceptive labeling questions. |
| Failure to state a claim under Rule 9(b) for the first six claims | Adequate goods and website-related misrepresentations; will allege falsity and reliance. | Insufficient specificity on when/where purchases occurred and product identification. | Dismissal with leave to amend for certain PAM/Hunt's products and website claims; otherwise not dismissed. |
| Warranty and unjust enrichment claims | Warranties and restitution-based claims should proceed. | Certain warranty claims fail as a matter of law. | Magnuson-Moss and Song-Beverly claims dismissed; unjust enrichment claim survives to proceed as restitution-based. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Aurora Dairy Corp. Organic Milk Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation, 621 F.3d 781 (8th Cir. 2010) (OFPA preemption limited to express conflicts; state claims may survive)
- Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2008) (reasonable consumer standards in UCL/CLRA/FAL; deception evaluated from consumer perspective)
- Chacanaca v. Quaker Oats Co., 752 F.Supp.2d 1111 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (NLEA preemption analyses; parallel state requirements not preempted)
- Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4th 310 (Cal. 2011) (economic injury and deception standards under California consumer laws)
- Lockwood v. Conagra Foods, Inc., 597 F.Supp.2d 1028 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (primary jurisdiction and natural labeling considerations)
- Cooper v. Pickett, 137 F.3d 616 (9th Cir. 1997) (who/what/when/where/how pleading standards in fraud claims)