Pelayo v. Nestle USA, Inc.
989 F. Supp. 2d 973
C.D. Cal.2013Background
- Plaintiff filed a California class action alleging false, misleading labeling on 13 Buitoni Pastas, focusing on the phrase “All Natural.”
- Plaintiff asserts the labeling is deceptive because several ingredients are synthetic or artificial.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).
- Court considers whether the “All Natural” label could mislead a reasonable consumer under UCL and CLRA.
- Court grants motion, finding no plausible objective or subjective definition of “All Natural” that makes the label deceptive.
- Plaintiff’s claims as to ten Buitoni products are dismissed without leave to amend and the action is dismissed with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CLRA/UCL claims survive given the term “All Natural.” | Pelayo argues the label misleads reasonable consumers. | Nestle contends the term is not deceptive as a matter of law. | No; dismissal upheld; no plausible definition shows deception. |
| Whether the packaging alone supports deception under the reasonable consumer standard | Pelayo claims the label conveys absence of synthetic ingredients. | Labels, including ingredient lists, clarify meaning; not deceptive. | No; packaging and ingredient disclosure negate deception. |
| Whether plaintiff adequately defines “All Natural” under California law | Plaintiff offers competing definitions (natural, synthetic, organic). | Definitions lack plausibility and do not fit FDA/NOP contexts. | No; no objective or subjective definition supports deception. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2008) (reasonable consumer standard for UCL/CLRA/FAL claims)
- Lavie v. Procter & Gamble Co., 105 Cal.App.4th 496 (Cal.App. 2003) (reasonableness focus for consumer deception)