Peviani v. Hostess Brands, Inc.
750 F. Supp. 2d 1111
C.D. Cal.2010Background
- Putative consumer class sues Hostess Brands, Interstate Brands, and IBC Sales over allegedly deceptive labeling of Hostess 100 Calorie Packs.
- Plaintiff Guttmann (and originally Peviani) asserts claims for false advertising, unfair competition, FAL, CLRA, and MMPA based on the label stating '0 Grams of Trans Fat' despite PVHO content.
- Plaintiffs purchased the products in California beginning January 2007 and allegedly relied on the '0 Grams of Trans Fat' claim in buying decisions.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim; Peviani later dismissed without prejudice.
- The court granted the motion to dismiss on multiple grounds, including federal preemption of state-law claims and lack of Article III standing under the Lanham Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are state-law claims preempted by federal law? | Peviani argues state laws provide additional protections not identical to FDA rules. | FDA and NLEA preempt state claims not identical to federal requirements. | Plaintiffs' state-law claims preempted by federal law. |
| Does Plaintiff have standing under the Lanham Act? | Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief for consumer deception and asserts standing as a purchaser. | Plaintiff is a consumer, not a competitor; lacks injury in fact under Lanham Act. | Plaintiff lacks standing; Lanham Act claim dismissed. |
| Whether the complaint fails to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) due to implied preemption and standing issues | Plaintiff contends claims are viable under state and federal law and not preempted. | Claims are preempted or fail to state a claim given lack of standing and federal regulation. | Court dismissed claims under Rule 12(b)(6) without leave to amend. |
| Does the court have personal jurisdiction over Defendants for these claims? | Plaintiff asserts sufficient contacts for jurisdiction in California. | Defendants challenge personal jurisdiction; appropriate in other forums or lacking sufficient contacts. | Court granted dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for pleading claims)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (heightened pleading standard after Twombly)
- Moss v. United States Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2009) (non-conclusory factual content plausibly supports a claim)
- Cetacean Cmty. v. Bush, 386 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2004) (standing and jurisdiction considerations in Ninth Circuit)
- Bates v. UPS, 511 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2007) (standing requires a concrete injury in fact for federal suits)
- Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (U.S. 2009) (federal preemption of state-law claims in certain regulatory contexts)
- Chae v. SLM Corp., 593 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2010) (preemption and field regulation considerations under federal law)
- Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470 (U.S. 1996) (federal regulation as controlling framework in medical device context)
- Altria Grp., Inc. v. Good, 555 U.S. 70 (U.S. 2008) (preemption principles under federal regulatory regimes)
- Chacanaca v. Quaker Oats Co., No official reporter given in text (2010) (NLEA preemption interplay with labeling claims (no official reporter cited in table))