McGarity v. Sun-Maid Growers of California
3:24-cv-00714
| S.D. Cal. | Jul 29, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Margaret McGarity alleges that Sun-Maid’s "Vanilla Yogurt Covered Raisins" and "Strawberry & Vanilla Yogurt Covered Raisins" are falsely labeled as "yogurt covered," as the coating does not contain, nor is it derived from, actual yogurt per FDA regulations.
- The FDA standard defines "yogurt" as a product cultured with specific bacteria, and the regulation for "yogurt-coated" products requires the presence of yogurt powder derived from yogurt meeting this standard.
- Plaintiff claims Sun-Maid’s coatings only contain yogurt powder made from cultured whey and nonfat milk, not from yogurt as federally defined.
- Plaintiff brings claims under California’s CLRA, FAL, UCL, for breach of express/implied warranty, and intentional misrepresentation, arguing consumers are misled.
- Defendant moved to dismiss, asserting federal preemption, failure to meet the reasonable consumer standard, lack of standing for injunctive relief, and other grounds.
- The Court previously dismissed the initial complaint and now reviews the amended one.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal Preemption | Claims not preempted because they allege parallel state law violations, not just FDCA | Claims are preempted as they depend solely on FDCA requirements | Not preempted; plaintiff’s claims fit through "narrow window" |
| Reasonable Consumer Standard | Reasonable consumers expect "yogurt covered" to mean derived from real yogurt | No reasonable consumer would believe the products contain fresh yogurt | Sufficiently pled for motion stage; not dismissible |
| Express & Implied Warranty | "Yogurt covered" is an express warranty that was breached | No breach since consumers wouldn’t expect real yogurt; lack of privity for implied | Express: claim stands; Implied: fails for lack of privity |
| Intentional Misrepresentation/Economic Loss Rule | Sufficient factual allegations, including FDA letter ignored by defendant | No intent to defraud; economic loss rule bars claims | Sufficiently pled intent, but economic loss rule bars the claim |
| Standing for Injunctive Relief | Harm from not being able to rely on labels in future | No likelihood of future harm | Standing adequately pled; request not dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (facial plausibility standard for motions to dismiss)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard for factual allegations)
- Cipollone v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 505 U.S. 504 (federal preemption of state law)
- McGinity v. Procter & Gamble Co., 69 F.4th 1093 ("reasonable consumer" standard in consumer deception cases)
- Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 934 (false advertising and misleading labeling evaluated by reasonable consumer standard)
- Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 534 F.3d 1017 (privity required for implied warranty under California law)
- Robinson Helicopter Co. v. Dana Corp., 34 Cal. 4th 979 (economic loss rule in California)
- Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 889 F.3d 956 (standing for injunctive relief in consumer labeling cases)