Koenig v. Boulder Brands, Inc.
995 F. Supp. 2d 274
| S.D.N.Y. | 2014Background
- This putative NY class action targets Boulder and GFA for labeling Smart Balance milks as ‘fat free’ despite omega-3 oil adding fat.
- Products at issue include Smart Balance Fat Free Milk and Omega-3s, Lactose-Free Fat Free Milk and Omega-3s, and Heart-Right Fat Free Milk and Omega-3s.
- Cartons disclose one gram of fat per serving in multiple places, yet marketing stresses fat-free and omega-3 benefits.
- Plaintiffs Koenig and Luongo, NY residents, allegedly bought Smart Balance products beginning in 2009 and paid price premiums.
- Class Period spans 2008 to September 2012, ending when labels were changed; Plaintiffs bring NY state-law claims.
- Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss; relief addressed under NY law with preemption analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NY GBL § 349 claims are preempted by federal law | Koenig; Luongo contend claims mirror federal fat-free requirements | Defendants claim preemption under NLEA § 343-l(a) for non-identical state demands | Not preempted; claims align with federal fat-content standards and are not expressly preempted. |
| Sufficiency of pleadings for GBL § 349 claim | Packaging context may mislead reasonable consumer; injury alleged via price premium | Disclosures on front label and nutrition panel negate material deception | Denial of dismissal; factual questions about reasonable consumer deception survive. |
| Sufficiency of pleadings for breach of express warranty | ‘Fat free’ claim created an express warranty; reliance implied | Privity required for NY express warranty; disclosures may negate warranty | Dismissed without prejudice for lack of privity; claims not yet pleaded adequately. |
| Unjust enrichment duplicative of other claims | Enrichment from sales due to misrepresentations; independent theory | Claims duplicative if other claims succeed; not independent relief | Dismissed as duplicative of other claims. |
| Statute of limitations applicability to claims | Certain purchases barred by statute of limitations | Dismissed with prejudice for pre-limitations period; other claims left intact. |
Key Cases Cited
- Famous Horse Inc. v. 5th Ave. Photo Inc., 624 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2010) (accepts allegations as true on Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss)