Nacarino v. KSF Acquisition Corporation
642 F.Supp.3d 1074
N.D. Cal.2022Background
- Plaintiff Elena Nacarino purchased SlimFast Advanced Nutrition Smoothie Mix (Vanilla Cream) in Dec. 2021 and relied on the front-label statement "20g HIGH PROTEIN." She alleges the mix alone contains only 12g per serving and that consumers must add milk to reach 20g.
- CAC alleges other SlimFast shake/smoothie mix products use the same front-label Protein Representation and similarly mislead purchasers.
- Claims pleaded on behalf of California classes: CLRA (damages and equitable relief), FAL, UCL, breach of express and implied warranty, unjust enrichment/quasi‑contract, and common‑law fraud.
- Defendant KSF moved to dismiss for lack of Article III and statutory standing (injunctive relief; products not purchased) and for failure to state claims under Rule 12(b)(6).
- Court determined factual allegations (including product panels) may be considered on the motion and issued a mixed ruling: CLRA damages survives; injunctive relief, restitutionary and several other claims dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to seek injunctive relief | Nacarino says she continues to face future deception and seeks injunctive relief. | KSF says Nacarino now knows the protein figure refers to prepared smoothie (must add milk), so no imminent risk. | No standing for injunctive relief as to the product she purchased; she can now check the nutrition panel so future injury is not certainly impending. |
| Standing to assert claims for products not purchased | Nacarino contends class claims may cover substantially similar SlimFast products she did not buy. | KSF contends Article III and statutory standing require purchase of each product. | Nacarino has Article III and statutory standing to assert non-injunctive claims about substantially similar products. |
| CLRA pre‑suit notice requirement (§1782) | Notice sent by another consumer on behalf of the putative class suffices to alert KSF and allow remediation. | KSF contends the named plaintiff must personally send the §1782 notice. | Letter sent on behalf of a class member satisfied §1782(a); CLRA damages claim not barred for lack of pre‑suit notice. |
| CLRA damages: reasonable consumer test / deceptive labeling | Front-label "20g HIGH PROTEIN" would mislead reasonable consumers to think the mix alone contains 20g. | KSF says disclosures on instruction panel and Nutrition Facts clarify that 20g is per prepared smoothie and are sufficiently prominent. | Reasonable-consumer claim is plausible at this stage; CLRA damages survive (front‑label prominence may mislead despite back‑panel disclosures). |
| Equitable restitution / unjust enrichment; express & implied warranty; common‑law fraud | Seeks restitution and warranty/fraud relief based on same label theory. | KSF argues legal remedies are adequate (precluding equitable restitution), and the Protein Representation is ambiguous (not an express false statement) so warranty and fraud claims fail. | Equitable restitution and unjust enrichment dismissed (Sonner requires inadequacy of legal remedy). Express and implied warranty claims dismissed. Common‑law fraud dismissed because the statement is ambiguous, not an objectively false affirmation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (U.S. 2016) (Article III standing requires a concrete and particularized injury)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (elements of Article III standing)
- Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2011) (injunctive‑relief standing requires a real and immediate threat of repeated injury)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (U.S. 2013) (possible future injury allegations insufficient for standing)
- Davidson v. Kimberly‑Clark Corp., 889 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2018) (previously deceived consumers may have standing for injunctive relief when they remain unable to rely on labels)
- Sonner v. Premium Nutrition Corp., 971 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2020) (equitable restitution under UCL/CLRA requires showing inadequacy of legal remedies)
- Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2008) (reasonable consumer test governs false‑advertising claims)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6) complaints)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (courts need not accept legal conclusions as true on a motion to dismiss)
- Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4th 310 (Cal. 2011) (UCL/FAL statutory standing requires injury and loss of money or property)
- In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (Cal. 2009) (distinguishes statutory consumer deception standards from the higher falsity requirement for common‑law fraud)