La Vigne v. Costco Wholesale Corp.
284 F. Supp. 3d 496
S.D. Ill.2018Background
- Plaintiffs (La Vigne, Hessler, Hogan) sued Costco on behalf of a putative class alleging deceptive marketing for Kirkland Signature Premium Chunk Chicken Breast (six 12.5 oz cans in opaque bulk packaging) under NY GBL § 349, Pennsylvania UTPCPL, and Mass. Ch. 93A.
- Packaging and labels state "Premium Chunk CHICKEN BREAST," "Packed in Water," net weights (each can 12.5 oz; total 6 cans = 4.6 lb), and Nutrition Facts showing "Serving Size 2 oz drained" and "Servings Per Container About 21" on bulk pack; individual cans show "Servings Per Container About 3.5."
- Plaintiffs allege cans contain substantial water (draining leaves ~7–8 oz meat per can; ~44% water), that unit price on shelf is computed by gross weight (including water), and that consumers were misled about quantity/value of chicken.
- Plaintiffs invoke federal Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) regulations (9 C.F.R. § 381.157), claiming the product contains <80% chicken and thus should disclose percentage of added liquid; they admit the label lists drained weight totals that match actual drained meat.
- Costco moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing PPIA preemption, that PPIA provides no private right of action, and that no reasonable consumer would be misled by the label/packaging. The Court granted the motion and closed the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiffs' state-law labeling claims are preempted by the PPIA | PPIA requires disclosure of liquid percentage when meat <80%; Kirkland cans contain <80% chicken so state-law claims merely enforce federal requirement | PPIA expressly preempts state labeling requirements different from federal ones; FSIS preapproved the label so state claims imposing different requirements are preempted | Court: Labeling-related state claims are preempted because success would conflict with FSIS-approved federal scheme (and Plaintiffs did not plead noncompliance with federal preparation-based calculation) |
| Whether Plaintiffs may privately enforce PPIA via state law where PPIA lacks a private right of action | Plaintiffs say state consumer statutes can vindicate the same substantive protections as federal rules by seeking damages under state law | Costco says allowing private enforcement would thwart Congress's choice to withhold a private right under PPIA | Court: Need not decide because labeling claims preempted; dismissed on preemption grounds |
| Whether packaging size and unit pricing (non-labeling aspects) state non-preempted claims remain viable | Plaintiffs argue can size and shelf unit-pricing mislead consumers about amount/value of chicken despite label disclosures | Costco contends disclosures ("packed in water," drained serving size, net weights) prevent any reasonable consumer confusion; unit price correctly uses net weight including liquid | Court: Non-labeling allegations survive preemption analysis in theory, but on the merits fail — as a matter of law reasonable consumers would not be misled given clear disclosures; claims dismissed |
| Whether Plaintiffs state plausible consumer-protection claims under NY GBL § 349, PA UTPCPL, Mass. Ch. 93A | Plaintiffs assert materially misleading conduct, justifiable reliance, and ascertainable loss from paying for water weight | Costco argues objective-reasonable-consumer standard not met because label and nutrition facts disclose water and drained servings, and unit pricing reflects net weight | Court: Claims under all three statutes fail; disclosures defeat the reasonable-consumer and reliance elements; dismissal granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standards for facial plausibility)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard under Rule 8)
- Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470 (1996) (preemption analysis—state requirements preempted only when different from federal)
- Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431 (2005) (interpretation of express preemption clause analogous to PPIA)
- Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009) (state-law claims not necessarily preempted by federal preapproval in absence of express preemption)
- LaFaro v. N.Y. Cardiothoracic Grp., PLLC, 570 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2009) (scope of documents/pleadings on motion to dismiss)
- Kleinman v. Elan Corp., PLC, 706 F.3d 145 (2d Cir. 2013) (consideration of documents incorporated by reference on Rule 12(b)(6) motion)