Walker v. B&G Foods, Inc.
4:15-cv-03772
N.D. Cal.Aug 20, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Troy Walker sued B&G Foods alleging taco shells were marketed as "0g Trans Fat!" despite containing partially hydrogenated oils (PHOs), asserting UCL (three prongs), FAL, CLRA, and express and implied warranty claims on behalf of a putative class.
- The court previously dismissed mislabeling claims as preempted by the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, allowed "use" claims to proceed for standing purposes, and stayed the case under primary jurisdiction pending FDA action on PHOs.
- The FDA issued a determination on PHOs on May 21, 2018; the parties failed to timely file the court-ordered joint statement after that determination, and Walker later moved to lift the stay and for leave to amend.
- Defendants renewed their motion to dismiss two remaining substantive issues: (1) dismissal of the implied warranty of merchantability claim and (2) dismissal of class claims for lack of an ascertainable class; they also sought an order to show cause for Rule 11 sanctions.
- The court evaluated whether PHO presence renders the taco shells unfit for ordinary use and whether class identification poses a threshold barrier to the class claims, while addressing the proper procedure for Rule 11 relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether implied warranty of merchantability claim survives | Walker: PHOs render taco shells unfit for human consumption; thus breach of implied warranty | Defendants: Presence of PHOs does not make product unfit; ingredient listed on label negates warranty claim under Cal. Com. Code § 2316 | Dismissed without leave to amend — PHOs do not show lack of basic fitness; ingredient disclosure defeats claim |
| Whether class claims must be dismissed for lack of ascertainability/administrative feasibility | Walker: class claims valid; identification practicable | Defendants: Plaintiff failed to allege a plausible method to identify class members | Denied — Ninth Circuit in Briseno forecloses a freestanding administrative-feasibility requirement at pleading stage |
| Whether court should issue Rule 11(c)(3) order to show cause for sanctions | Walker: (no separate argument noted) | Defendants: Seek order to show cause for Rule 11 sanctions | Denied — Court declines to issue sua sponte Rule 11(c)(3) order; directs defendants to use Rule 11(c)(2) motion procedure if they seek sanctions |
Key Cases Cited
- Mocek v. Alfa Leisure, Inc., 114 Cal. App. 4th 402 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (defines breach of implied warranty of merchantability as lack of even the most basic degree of fitness for ordinary use)
- Am. Suzuki Motor Corp. v. Superior Court, 37 Cal. App. 4th 1291 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (implied warranty imposes minimum quality standard, not exact fulfillment of buyer expectations)
- Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 844 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2017) (rejects a freestanding administrative-feasibility prerequisite to class certification under Rule 23)
- Backus v. Gen. Mills, Inc., 122 F. Supp. 3d 909 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (PHO-containing food products do not plausibly allege they lack basic fitness for ordinary use)
- Viggiano v. Hansen Nat. Corp., 944 F. Supp. 2d 877 (C.D. Cal. 2013) (allegations that products contained certain additives do not, without more, show products were not merchantable or fit for ordinary use)