Miller v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co.
912 F. Supp. 2d 861
N.D. Cal.2012Background
- Miller purchased Ghirardelli Premium Baking Chips — Classic White and alleges misrepresentation about white chocolate across five products.
- Products at issue: baking chips, White Chocolate Flavored Coating Wafers, Sweet Ground White Chocolate Flavor, Premium Hot Beverage — White Mocha, and Frappé Classico — Classic White.
- Miller cites FDA and general definitions of white chocolate to contend packaging misleads consumers about white chocolate content.
- Plaintiff asserts class action based on CAFA jurisdiction; seeks injunctive relief, restitution, and damages where applicable.
- Court granted in part: Miller lacked standing to challenge four unpurchased products; denied other claims; amendment allowed within 21 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue on unpurchased products | Miller argues standing to represent unnamed purchasers. | Ghirardelli contends lack of standing for products not bought. | Miller lacks standing for four unpurchased products. |
| Sufficiency of 12(b)(6) for baking chips claim | Allegations show deception via packaging and marketing. | Labeling and puffery do not support deception. | Allegations survive 12(b)(6) as to baking chips. |
| Fraud claim sufficiency | Misrepresentations/omissions support a common-law fraud claim. | Need stricter pleading under Rule 9(b). | Fraud claim adequately pleaded at this stage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2008) (reasonable consumer standard governs false advertising and UCL/FAL/CLRA claims)
- Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Servs., Inc., 622 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2010) (pleading standards applied to similar deceptive-practices claims)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (standing requires injury-in-fact and redressability)