961 F. Supp. 2d 1048
N.D. Cal.2013Background
- Pardini files putative class action against Unilever U.S., Inc. alleging deceptive marketing of I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter! Spray (ICBINBS) claiming “0 fat” and “0 calories.”
- Product is dispensed via manual pump; front label states 0 Calories per serving and 0 g trans fat; back nutrition panel lists fat, calories, and ingredients.
- Pardini alleges actual fat/calorie content per bottle is 82 g fat and 771 calories; total container alleged at 340 g with serving sizes disputed.
- Plaintiff asserts small stated serving sizes misstate fat/calorie content; seeks nationwide class and California subclass; asserts FDCA violations (§§ 343(q), 343(r)) and related FDA regulations.
- Defendant moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) on preemption and pleading grounds; court grants with leave to amend (certain claims preempted, asterisk claim not preempted).
- Court discusses that some claims (unjust enrichment, some state-law CP claims) may be dismissed; others survive only to the extent predicated on the asterisk fat claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FDCA/NLEA preempts serving-size and nutrient-content claims | Pardini argues preemption does not apply to state-law claims predicated on labeling. | Unilever contends FDA regulations preempt state-law claims incompatible with those rules. | Serving-size and nutrient-content claims preempted. |
| Whether the asterisk/explanatory-note requirement is preempted | Asterisk requirement clarifies fat content; front-label fat claim triggers §101.62(b). | §101.62(b) applies only when fat-free claims; the front-label language is not a separate nutrient-content claim. | Asterisk claim not preempted. |
| Whether there is a private right of action to enforce FDCA regulations | Claims fall under private rights for deception beyond FDCA violation. | FDCA itself does not provide private right of action. | Not preempted; private action available where allegations survive as deception independent of FDCA violation. |
| Whether fraud-based claims are sufficiently pled under Rule 9(b) | Complaint pleads falsity, reliance, and impact; seeks to amend for specifics. | Fraud claims lack particularity, reliance specifics, and causation for UCL/CLRA. | Fraud by concealment, intentional misrepresentation, UCL, CLRA claims tied to asterisk are dismissed for lack of particularity; leave to amend granted. |
| Whether unjust enrichment and other-state CP claims survive | Unjust enrichment seeks restitution; other-state CP claims viable as class actions. | Unjust enrichment not standalone; multi-state CP claims problematic for class. | Unjust enrichment dismissed with prejudice; other-state CP claims dismissed with leave to amend. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard; not all allegations accepted as true)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must state plausible claim, not mere recitals)
- Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) (fraud pleading requires specificity; who/what/when/where/how)
- Cafazzo v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2011) (fraud pleading standard; particularity obligations)
- Chacanaca v. Quaker Oats Co., 752 F. Supp. 2d 1111 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (preemption principles in FDA labeling context)
- Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2008) (front-label representations vs. ingredient list disclosure)
- Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co., 666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012) (state consumer protection claims in class action considering each jurisdiction)