Kane v. Chobani, Inc.
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22258
N.D. Cal.2014Background
- Plaintiffs allege mislabeling of Chobani Greek Yogurt ECJ and All Natural representations across several flavors.
- Plaintiffs claim ECJ refers to sugar/dried cane syrup and that labeling violates FDA naming norms and the yogurt standard of identity.
- Plaintiffs allege All Natural representations are false due to artificial colors and highly processed color additives.
- TAC asserts federal and state claims under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA, incorporating Sherman Law labeling standards.
- Procedural history includes multiple amended complaints; September 19, 2013 order dismissed SAC with leave to amend and TAC thereafter, leading to current TAC.
- Court grants motion to dismiss TAC with prejudice for lack of standing and failure to plead reliance under Rule 8/9.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue | Kane asserts UCL/FAL/CLRA standing from purchased products and reliance. | Chobani contends no standing due to failure to plead actual reliance and injury. | Standing lacking; claims dismissed with prejudice. |
| Reliance pleading for ECJ claims | Plaintiffs allege actual reliance on ECJ misrepresentation to purchase yogurt. | ECJ reliance theory implausible and not pled with specificity under Rule 9(b). | ECJ claims dismissed with prejudice for failure to plead reliance and standing. |
| Reliance pleading for All Natural claims | Plaintiffs claim reliance on all-natural representations despite artificial colors. | Label disclosure of coloring undermines plausible reliance; reliance not pled with specificity. | All Natural claims dismissed with prejudice for lack of standing and futility of amendment. |
| Amendment and futility | Plaintiffs seek leave to amend to cure deficiencies. | Amendment would be futile given prior opportunities and multiple dismissals. | Leave to amend denied; amendments would be futile; dismissals with prejudice. |
| Rule 9(b) pleading standard | Plaintiffs argue claims meet heightened pleading requirements for fraud-based misrepresentations. | Pleadings fail to identify time/place/content of misrepresentations with particularity. | Rule 9(b) not satisfied; claims fail on pleading standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (Cal. 2009) (actual reliance required under UCL fraud/unlawful prongs)
- Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.4th 39 (Cal. 2011) (actual reliance required for misrepresentation-based UCL unlawful prong)
- Cooper v. Pickett, 137 F.3d 616 (9th Cir. 1997) (need the who, what, when, where, and how for fraud pleadings)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (standing elements: injury, causation, redressability)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for pleading claims)
- McCarthy v. United States, 850 F.2d 558 (9th Cir. 1988) (scope of judicial review on Rule 12(b)(1) challenges)