Zemola v. Carrington Tea Company, LLC, 3:17-cv-00760

Background

Plaintiffs Zemola and Beaumont sued Carrington Tea Company (maker of Carrington Farms coconut oil) alleging its labeling and marketing represent the coconut oil as "healthy," which is misleading given its high saturated-fat content and associated cardiovascular risks. Plaintiffs purchased Extra Virgin Coconut Oil; they seek class relief, statutory claims (CLRA, UCL, FAL) and breach of express and implied warranties.
Plaintiffs rely on public health studies and allege the product labels and overall marketing convey a misleading "healthy" message that caused them to pay a premium and suffer economic injury.
Defendant moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(6), 9(b), and 12(b)(1) for lack of standing, failure to plead fraud with particularity, and implausibility; alternatively it sought a stay under the primary jurisdiction doctrine pending the FDA’s reconsideration of the term "healthy."
The court denied judicial notice of defendant’s submitted studies as moot because it did not rely on them in resolving the motions.
The court held plaintiffs have standing to bring claims based on similar products they did not purchase, but lack standing to seek prospective injunctive relief because they did not plausibly allege a present intent to purchase in the future.
On the merits, the court denied dismissal in substantial part: the complaint adequately alleges consumer-protection and warranty claims (including reliance, falsity allegations, and economic injury) but allowed plaintiffs leave to amend as to injunctive-relief allegations. The court also denied the requested stay pending FDA action.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to assert claims for products not purchased	Plaintiffs may represent class members for substantially similar products where composition and misrepresentations are similar	Plaintiffs lack injury for products they did not buy	Held: Plaintiffs have standing because the products and alleged misrepresentations are substantially similar
Standing for prospective injunctive relief	Plaintiffs claim ongoing dissemination of deceptive information creates a future threat of harm	Plaintiffs do not allege intent or desire to purchase in future	Held: Denied — plaintiffs failed to allege facts showing likely future injury; leave to amend granted
Sufficiency of fraud-based consumer protection claims (UCL/FAL/CLRA) and warranties	Labels and marketing (totality of labeling) convey a false "healthy" message; plaintiffs allege specific representations, reliance, and premium paid	Labels contain accurate nutrition facts; plaintiffs fail to plead falsity, reliance, causation, or damages with required particularity	Held: Denied — complaint plausibly pleads deception, reliance, and economic injury; Rule 9(b) and 12(b)(6) challenges rejected at pleading stage
Request to stay under primary jurisdiction pending FDA reconsideration of "healthy"	FDA reconsideration will guide or resolve issues and is within agency expertise; past Ninth Circuit guidance supports stays in label-term disputes	FDA already has enforceable "healthy" rules and guidance; proceedings are nascent and unlikely to resolve soon; stay would needlessly delay litigation	Held: Denied — primary jurisdiction stay not warranted; Astiana/Kane are distinguishable; efficiency and imminence factors weigh against stay

Key Cases Cited

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must be plausible)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (legal conclusions not entitled to assumption of truth)
Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097 (Rule 9(b) applies to fraud-based claims)
Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 934 (consumer-protection claims: likely-to-deceive standard)
Clark v. Time Warner Cable, 523 F.3d 1110 (primary jurisdiction factors)
Astiana v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc., 783 F.3d 753 (stay under primary jurisdiction appropriate in certain labeling disputes)
Rhoades v. Avon Prods., Inc., 504 F.3d 1151 (efficiency is key in primary jurisdiction analysis)