Zakinov v. Blue Buffalo Pet Products, Inc, 3:17-cv-01301

Plaintiff Vladi Zakinov bought Blue Buffalo dog food (up to Dec. 2015 purchases) and alleges it contained unsafe levels of lead causing his dog’s kidney disease and contradicting Blue Buffalo’s "healthy" marketing and "LifeSource Bits" claims.
Plaintiff filed a putative class action asserting negligent misrepresentation, CLRA, FAL, UCL, breach of express warranty, and breach of implied warranty in state court (FAC filed after initial complaint).
Defendant moved to dismiss chiefly on res judicata grounds, supported by a request for judicial notice of documents from the prior MDL settlement (In re Blue Buffalo, E.D. Mo.).
In re Blue Buffalo was a nationwide class settlement (preliminary approval Dec. 18, 2015) covering purchasers from May 7, 2008 through Dec. 18, 2015 and included broad releases of claims "relating in any way to the marketing, advertising, or labeling of any of the Blue Buffalo Products."
The court took judicial notice of MDL filings and certain FDA materials (limited to existence, not truth where disputed) and found Zakinov was a Settlement Class Member whose current claims arise from the same transactional nucleus as the MDL.
The court dismissed the FAC with prejudice (without leave to amend) as barred by res judicata because the MDL settlement was a final judgment, the parties (and their privies) overlapped, and the claims could have been asserted in the prior action.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Judicial notice of MDL documents and FDA materials	Opposed taking notice for truth; argued documents not proper subjects	MDL docket filings and government materials are judicially noticeable; truth may be reserved	Court granted judicial notice of MDL and FDA documents for limited purposes and declined to take disputed facts as true
Whether Zakinov's claims are barred by res judicata	Claims about lead are different and were not litigated in MDL; thus not precluded	MDL settlement had broad release covering marketing/labeling claims and precludes subsequent suits by class members	Court held res judicata bars the FAC: MDL settlement = final judgment; plaintiff was a class member; claims arise from same transactional nucleus
Whether the present claims arise from same transactional nucleus of facts	Lead-based theory is distinct and would require different evidence	Both suits challenge the same primary right: truthful marketing of Blue Buffalo products; claims could have been asserted in MDL	Court found the transactional nucleus and primary right the same despite different evidentiary focus, favoring preclusion
Leave to amend after dismissal	(implicitly) sought leave to pursue these claims	Amendment would be futile because the settlement/judgment precludes relitigation	Court denied leave to amend as futile and dismissed with prejudice

Brown v. Electronic Arts, 724 F.3d 1235 (9th Cir.) (pleading facts taken as true when ruling on 12(b)(6))
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for complaints)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (legal conclusions not accepted as true on motion to dismiss)
Blonder–Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation, 402 U.S. 313 (res judicata prevents relitigation of same causes of action)
In re Int'l Nutronics, Inc., 28 F.3d 965 (9th Cir.) (factors for same claim/transactional nucleus analysis)
Costantini v. Trans World Airlines, 681 F.2d 1199 (9th Cir.) (importance of transactional nucleus of facts in res judicata analysis)
Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262 (9th Cir.) (focus on harm suffered in primary-right analysis)
United States v. Liquidators of European Fed. Credit Bank, 630 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir.) (whether a claim could have been brought in prior action aligns with transactional nucleus inquiry)