Wertymer v. Walmart, Inc., 1:23-cv-14700

Plaintiff John Wertymer filed a putative class action against Walmart, alleging its "Great Value" Raw Honey and Organic Raw Honey are deceptively labeled as "raw."
Wertymer's theory relies on lab testing, claiming Walmart's honeys exceeded allegedly appropriate benchmarks for "raw" through measurements like HMF and mannose content, which he argues evidences improper heating or industrial processing.
The USDA does not have a specific federal definition of "raw" honey; industry practice generally defines it as honey not heated or filtered, but with no reference to HMF or mannose values.
Plaintiff sought monetary, declaratory, and injunctive relief, including class-wide relief for other similarly situated purchasers under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA).
The court had previously dismissed Wertymer’s original complaint; Walmart again moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) (subject-matter jurisdiction) and Rule 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim).
The key procedural holding: the court granted Walmart’s motion to dismiss with prejudice for the ICFA and misrepresentation claims, and without prejudice for the declaratory judgment claim (for lack of standing).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing for declaratory relief	Wertymer has standing as a class representative because the claim is capable of repetition yet evading review	Wertymer knew of the alleged mislabeling before filing, so lacks imminent injury and thus standing	Plaintiff lacks standing; claim dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction
Deceptiveness of "raw" honey label under ICFA	Honey with HMF/mannose values exceeding certain scientific standards is not "raw," thus Walmart’s labeling is deceptive	There is no binding U.S. standard for “raw” honey; consumer expectations not that specific; standards cited are from New Zealand or are industry guidelines	No plausible claim; consumer expectations not established; claim dismissed with prejudice
Fraudulent misrepresentation by labeling	Walmart knowingly mislabeled products as "raw" despite testing showing otherwise	Labels are consistent with generalized U.S. industry understanding; nothing misleading about the "raw" description under law	No plausible claim for fraud; dismissed with prejudice
Leave to amend complaint	Plaintiff should be allowed to amend	Second amended pleading would be futile	No further leave to amend granted

TransUnion, LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (standing requires imminent injury for prospective relief)
City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (injunctive relief requires a real and immediate threat of repeated injury)
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env't Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (mootness exceptions do not cure lack of standing at outset)
Reardon v. Danley, 74 F.4th 825 (court must draw reasonable inferences for plaintiff on a motion to dismiss)
Russell v. Zimmer, Inc., 82 F.4th 564 (complaint must nudge claim across plausibility line)
Page v. Alliant Credit Union, 52 F.4th 340 (plausibility standard on motion to dismiss)