Strumlauf v. Starbucks Corp.
192 F. Supp. 3d 1025
N.D. Cal.2016Background
- Plaintiffs Siera Strumlauf and Benjamin Robles filed a putative class action alleging Starbucks "Grande" lattes are underfilled relative to menu volume representations (Grande = 16 fl. oz.).
- Plaintiffs allege uniform underfilling based on: (1) industry practice of excluding foam from liquid volume, (2) standardized pitcher "fill to" markings that under-measure, and (3) a recipe instruction to leave ~1/4" headspace in cups whose capacity equals the advertised volumes.
- Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief and assert eight causes of action: breach of express warranty; breach of implied warranty of merchantability; unjust enrichment; CLRA, UCL, FAL violations; negligent misrepresentation; and common-law fraud.
- Starbucks moved to dismiss for lack of Article III standing (esp. for injunctive relief) and for failure to state claims under Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b).
- The court denied dismissal as to Article III standing for damages and several tort/statutory claims, but dismissed injunctive relief and granted dismissal with prejudice of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, and negligent misrepresentation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing for damages | Plaintiffs allege systemic underfilling by standardized recipe/pitchers and industry measurement practice; thus their purchased lattes likely were underfilled | Plaintiffs failed to plead specific measurement of their own drinks, so no concrete injury | Denied dismissal — plaintiffs plausibly alleged injury in fact for damages based on uniform-practice allegations |
| Standing for injunctive relief | Plaintiffs seek injunction to prevent ongoing deception | Once plaintiffs know the alleged deception, they lack a likelihood of future injury | Granted — injunctive relief dismissed with prejudice (no likelihood of repeated injury) |
| Breach of express warranty | Menu affirmations of fluid ounces formed basis of bargain and were breached | Foam is part of a "latte" and volume representation necessarily includes foam; plaintiffs’ foam theory is implausible | Denied dismissal — allegations sufficient at pleading stage to state express warranty claim |
| Breach of implied warranty of merchantability | Menu volume representations and standardized preparation support implied-warranty claim | Lattes are fit for ordinary use (drinkable); plaintiffs do not allege unfitness | Granted with prejudice — implied warranty requires lack of basic fitness; plaintiffs alleged only shortfall in quantity |
| CLRA / UCL / FAL (reasonable consumer and Rule 9(b)) | Consumers likely to be misled by advertised fluid ounces; fraud pleaded with who/what/when/where/how | No reasonable consumer would exclude foam or expect exact volumes in handcrafted drinks; alleged deception implausible; Rule 9(b) not satisfied | Denied dismissal — reasonable-consumer question is factual; Rule 9(b) particularity met |
| Unjust enrichment / restitution | Plaintiffs seek restitution for overpayment | Unjust enrichment is not a separate cause of action in California and quasi-contract cannot lie where express warranty exists | Granted with prejudice — claim unavailable as separate cause and remedies at law adequate |
| Negligent misrepresentation | Misleading volume statements caused economic loss | Economic loss doctrine bars tort recovery of purely economic harms absent injury to person/property or narrow exception | Granted with prejudice — economic loss doctrine bars negligent misrepresentation here |
| Common-law fraud | Plaintiffs allege fraudulent misrepresentations re: volume and reliance | Same reasonable-consumer and reliance challenges as statutory fraud claims | Denied dismissal — factual dispute as to whether reasonable consumers could be misled |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (Article III standing requires concrete, particularized injury)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (legal conclusions not entitled to factual-pleading assumption)
- Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2008) (reasonable consumer test governs deceptive advertising claims)
- Bates v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 511 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2007) (standing for injunctive relief requires likelihood of future injury)
- Hodgers-Durgin v. de la Vina, 199 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 1999) (putative class representatives must themselves be entitled to injunctive relief to seek it for class)
- Robinson Helicopter Co. v. Dana Corp., 34 Cal.4th 979 (Cal. 2004) (economic loss doctrine limits tort recovery for purely economic damages)
- Lavie v. Procter & Gamble Co., 105 Cal.App.4th 496 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (definition of "likely to be deceived" and reasonable consumer standard)