390 F. Supp. 3d 1231
D. Haw.2019Background
- Plaintiffs allege Defendant marketed snack products with "HAWAIIAN" branding and imagery that falsely suggested the snacks were made in Hawai‘i when manufactured on the mainland; Maeda is a named Hawai‘i purchaser and Sanchez is a named California purchaser.
- Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing lack of personal jurisdiction over nonresident Sanchez and unnamed nonresident class members; failure to plead actionable misrepresentations under Hawai‘i and California consumer-protection laws; contract/warranty and fraud claims deficient; and lack of standing for injunctive relief.
- Court found no general jurisdiction over Defendant and applied the Ninth Circuit specific-jurisdiction framework to assess Sanchez’s claims arising from alleged conduct in California vs. Hawai‘i.
- The Court dismissed Sanchez’s claims with prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction and declined pendent jurisdiction because no federal claim provided a hook.
- The Court dismissed Maeda’s "Made in Hawaii" statutory claim with prejudice (no private right of action), sustained the Hawai‘i false-advertising criminal statutory claim, allowed negligent-misrepresentation and unjust-enrichment claims to proceed, and dismissed several claims with leave to amend for pleading deficiencies (including Hawai‘i UDAP, California consumer claims, express and implied warranty, and common-law fraud/intentional misrepresentation).
- The Court found Maeda pleaded sufficient facts to have Article III standing to seek injunctive relief (alleged threat of future inability to rely on labeling), so injunctive-relief standing survived.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over nonresident Sanchez | Sanchez alleged injury from California sales; asserts class context should allow her claims | No specific or general jurisdiction; plaintiff must satisfy specific-jurisdiction test for each named plaintiff | Sanchez's claims dismissed with prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction; pendent jurisdiction declined (no federal claim) |
| Private right to enforce HRS § 486-119 ("Made in Hawaii") | Maeda contends the statute fits among Title 26 consumer protections that permit private suits | Legislature intended enforcement by Board of Agriculture; statute lacks express private right | "Made in Hawaii" claim dismissed with prejudice — no implied private right of action |
| Hawai‘i UDAP and false-advertising claims | Maeda: packaging is deceptive and materially likely to mislead reasonable consumers | Def: branding is truthful heritage/stylistic, puffery, or disclosed by FDA labeling | Hawai‘i false-advertising (HRS §708-871) survives; UDAP (HRS §480-2) dismissed for lack of particularized allegations (leave to amend) |
| California consumer-protection claims (CLRA/UCL/FAL) | Maeda alleges packaging likely to deceive reasonable consumers and caused reliance | Def: not likely to mislead reasonable consumers; claims sound in fraud and must meet Rule 9(b) | Claims dismissed for failure to plead with Rule 9(b) particularity; leave to amend granted |
| Breach of express and implied warranty | Maeda: labeling/"HAWAIIAN" statements created express/implied warranties that goods were made in Hawai‘i | Def: word "Hawaiian" and imagery are not factual promises; no basis for express warranty; implied warranty follows express warranty | Express and implied warranty claims dismissed with leave to amend (court found labeling not an affirmation of fact as pled) |
| Common-law fraud / intentional misrepresentation | Maeda: Defendant knowingly marketed products as made in Hawai‘i to induce purchase | Def: allegations conclusory; plaintiff must plead who/what/when/where/how under Rule 9(b) | Fraud and intentional-misrepresentation claims dismissed for failure to satisfy Rule 9(b); leave to amend granted |
| Negligent misrepresentation | Maeda: Defendant negligently communicated false origin information inducing purchase | Def: (argued economic-loss rule) | Negligent-misrepresentation claim survives (court applied notice pleading; economic-loss rule inapplicable) |
| Unjust enrichment / restitution | Maeda: Defendant unjustly retained benefit from misleading sales | Def: equitable relief inappropriate if express contract governs | Quasi-contract/unjust-enrichment claim survives (sufficient pleaded) |
| Standing for injunctive relief | Maeda: previously deceived, wishes to purchase in future but cannot rely on labeling; faces imminent inability to rely | Def: Maeda knows origin is disclosed; no real threat of future deception | Court found Article III standing for injunctive relief (analogous to Davidson) and denied motion on standing |
Key Cases Cited
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. State of Wash., 326 U.S. 310 (due process minimum contacts test for personal jurisdiction)
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Ct. of Cal., 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) (limitations on specific jurisdiction over out-of-state plaintiffs)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (general jurisdiction limited to place of incorporation and principal place of business)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) (specific jurisdiction requires defendant’s suit-related contacts with the forum itself)
- Axiom Foods, Inc. v. Acerchem Int'l, Inc., 874 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2017) (three-part specific-jurisdiction test in Ninth Circuit)
- Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 889 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2018) (previously deceived consumer may have standing to seek injunction)
- Williams v. Gerber Prod. Co., 552 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2008) (reasonable consumer standard governs consumer-protection claims)
- Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) (Rule 9(b) applied to UCL/CLRA claims grounded in fraud)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing Article III injury-in-fact requirements)