DECISION AND ORDER
Erin Silber (“Silber”) and Olympia Moro (“Moro”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) initiated these related actions as proposed class actions against Barbara’s Bakery, Inc. (“Defendant”) on November 5 and December 11, 2012, respectively. Plaintiffs allege Defendant falsely represents the content and quality of its products as “All Natural,” when, in fact, the products contain purportedly “unnatural” ingredients. According to Plaintiffs, consumers relied on these misrepresentations and were deceived into purchasing Defendant’s products during the period of time beginning September 21, 2006 and continuing through the conclusion of this action.
I. Background
Defendant is a California corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Weetabix Company, Inc., with its principal place of business located in Massachusetts. Answer at ¶ 20.
Moro is a citizen of New York, who allegedly purchased Puffins products while relying on the products’ “All Natural” advertising. Moro Compl. at ¶ 9. Silber is also a citizen of New York, domiciled in Brooklyn, New York, who allegedly relied on the phrases displayed on Defendant’s product packaging when she purchased a box of Puffins Original cereal, during the proposed Class Period. Compl. at ¶ 19. According to Silber, the above-listed phrases are “central to the marketing” of Defendant’s products. Id. at ¶ 5.
Plaintiffs contend Defendant’s marketing campaign is controverted by the contents of Defendant’s products, which include “synthetic ingredients and corn that is derived from unnatural, genetically modified plants.” Id at ¶ 6. Indeed, Defendant admits that certain of its products contain “corn, bred from genetically modified seeds.” Answer at ¶ 6.
Plaintiffs argue Defendant’s marketing phraseology is “false, misleading, and designed to deceive consumers into purchasing,” and paying a premium for, its products. Compl. at ¶¶ 16, 9. Plaintiffs base this argument on three contentions: first, the term “natural” has been partially defined by federal agencies, see id. at ¶¶ 10-11; second, a majority of consumers expect “natural” foods to be free from genetically modified organisms (“GMOs”), see id. at ¶ ¶¶ 13-14; and, third, GMOs and other of Defendant’s ingredients are commonly understood to be “unnatural,” see id. at ¶ 15. The Court summarizes each contention in turn.
First, Plaintiffs claim “natural” has been “at least partially defined by federal agencies and regulations.” Id. at ¶ 10. Plaintiffs argue the Court may take judicial notice of Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) definitions and statements, and that, “according to FDA policy, ‘natural’ means the product does not contain synthetic or artificial ingredients.” Pis.’ Br. at 12, nn. 21-22 (quoting Declaration of Yvette Golan (“Golan Deck”), Ex. 21 at 2 (“FDA: Consumer Health Information: Food Label Helps Consumers Make Healthier Choices”)); see also Golan Deck, Ex. 22 (“FDA: Label Declaration of Certification-Exempt Color Additives”). Plaintiffs cite the Code of Federal Regulations in support of their point that many of Defendant’s product ingredients are considered “synthetic” or “chemical preservatives.” Pis.’ Br. at 13 (citing 7 C.F.R. § 205.601, et seq.).
Defendant disputes Plaintiffs’ claims, noting in particular that “[t]he FDA has plainly stated that use of the term ‘natural’ on food labels has no defined meaning.” Def.’s Opp. Br. at 3 (citing Declaration of Clement L. Glynn (“Glynn Deck”), Ex. A (“FDA Transparency Basics,” available at http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/ Transpareney/Basics/ucm214868.htm (visited Apr. 16, 2013)). At oral argument, Plaintiffs conceded that the FDA has not agreed on a definition of “natural.” See Hr’g Tr. at 9:2-4 (“the FDA ... has indeed not commented on it and there is no federal definition as to what ‘all natural’ means”); 9:10-12 (natural “still has not been defined by the federal government with regard to the issue of genetically modified ingredients and what is ‘all natural’ ”). Nevertheless, Plaintiffs argue that FDA statements and publications provide sufficient guidance with respect to the meaning of “natural,” such that Defendant’s representations of its “All Natural” ingredients are false and misleading. See generally Pis.’ Suppl. Br. at 5-7 (citing FDA Warning Letter to Snapple Natural Beverage Co. (Mar. 9, 1992) and FDA Warning Letter to Oak Tree Farm Dairy, Inc. (Aug. 16, 2001), both of which warn against advertising products containing, e.g., ascorbic acid and potassium sórbate as “all natural”). Plaintiffs also reference a Third Circuit decision in Holk v. Snapple Beverage Corp. for the proposition that the FDA “has repeatedly stated that it ‘has considered natural’ to mean that nothing artificial or synthetic :.. is included in, or has been added to, the product.’” Pis.’ Suppl. Br. at 6 (citing
Second, Plaintiffs report that “consumers expect ‘natural’ foods to be free of genetically engineered ingredients,” and that this expectation renders Defendant’s advertising misleading. Compl. at ¶ 13. For example, a 2010 study by the Hartman Group found that most consumers believe “natural” to imply the absence of GMOs. Id. at 1114 (citing Canada Organic Trade Ass’n, “Consumer Confusion About the Difference: ‘Natural’ and ‘Organic’ Product Claims” (2010), at 6, available at http:// www.ocpro.ca/clocs/Library/White% 20Pa-per% 20Nat-Org% 20COTA.pdf) (“Most consumers do not know that products labeled ‘Natural’ are no different from regular products.”). Relatedly, the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University found that nutrition-related health claims on cereal boxes “lead to greater willingness in parents to buy those cereals for their children.” Id. at ¶27 (citing Karen N. Peart, Parents Often Misled by Health Claims on Children’s Cereal Packages, Yale News (Aug. 10, 2011), available at http://news.yale.edu/ 2011/08/10/ parents-often-misled-healthelaims-childrens-cereal-packages). Because “reasonable consumers” believe “natural” products “do not contain artificial or synthetic ingredients,” Plaintiffs argue Defendant’s marketing language misrepresents the contents and quality of its products, consequently inducing Plaintiffs and other consumers to more willingly purchase Defendant’s products. Pis.’ Mot. at 14; see also Compl. at 39-42; Pis.’ Suppl. Br. at 7-8 (citing Dictionary.com and Collins English Dictionary for definitions of “natural”).
To bolster this point, Plaintiffs refer to several examples of apparent indignation by consumers and retailers. Ever since
Third, Plaintiffs assert “[a] product that is derived from GMOs is unnatural by definition.” Compl. at ¶ 29. In other words, Defendant’s representations of its “natural” ingredients are rendered false by reference to established definitions for “unnatural.” Id. at ¶ 15. For example, Plaintiff claims the FDA has “defined the outer boundaries of ... ‘natural’ ” by defining “synthetic” and “artificial” to exclude “substances created by naturally occurring biological processes.” Compl. at ¶ 10 (citing 7 C.F.R. § 205.2 (defining “synthetic” as “formulated or manufactured by a chemical process or by a process that chemically changes a substance extracted from naturally occurring plant, animal, or mineral sources, except that such term shall not apply to substances created by naturally occurring biological processes”); 21 C.F.R. § 101.22(a) (defining “artificial flavor” as “not derived from a spice, fruit or fruit juice, vegetable or vegetable juice, edible yeast, herb, bark, bud, root, leaf or similar plant material .... [, excluding substances] derived from natural sources”)). Similarly, the World Health Organization (“WHO”) defines GMOs as “organisms in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally.” Compl. at ¶ 15 (citing “20 Questions on Genetically Modified Foods,” World Health Organization, available at http://www.who.int/ food-safety/publications/biotech/20questions/en).
It is undisputed that Puffins products contain the following purportedly “unnatural” ingredients: NutraFlora, annatto, calcium carbonate, ferric orthophosphate, tocopherols, retinyl palmitate, ascorbic acid, vitamin D3, dehydrated can juice, and GMOs. Id. at ¶¶ 37-38; Answer at ¶¶ 37-38. Plaintiffs contend these ingredients are not “natural,” because each is extensively processed or chemically engineered, such that they do not occur through natural, biological processes. Compl. at ¶¶ 37-38. For example, Plaintiff asserts “[a]s
In light of the commonsense — if not official — definition of “natural,” and the understanding that many of Defendant’s product ingredients are commonly considered “unnatural,” Plaintiffs allege Defendant’s marketing and advertising statements are “false, misleading, and deceptive.” Plaintiffs allege that they and other putative class members reasonably relied on Defendant’s advertising when they decided to purchase Defendant’s products, and at a premium price. Id. at ¶¶ 40-42. This reliance, Plaintiffs contend, establishes causation between Defendant’s misrepresentations and the injuries sustained by Plaintiffs and their proposed class. Id at ¶ 44. Silber asserts a list of injuries, including, inter alia: being denied the benefit of knowing what she ingested, ingesting products that were not as represented, and paying a premium price for products that were not as represented. Id. at ¶ 47. Finally, and particularly pertinent to the instant motion, Plaintiffs argue Defendant’s representations will “continue to deceive and mislead reasonable consumers and the general public.” Id. at ¶ 45.
Plaintiffs now ask the Court to “require[] Barbara’s Bakery immediately to discontinue offering all falsely labeled Products for sale to the public, including by removing all falsely labeled Products from store shelves. In addition (or in the alternative), Plaintiff seeks immediate removal of all representations indicating the Products are ‘All Natural’ (and similar language) from the Product labels and advertising, and/or immediate reformulation of the Products to be free of GMOs and synthetic ingredients.” Pis.’ Br. at 3.
II. Standard of Law
Pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court may issue a preliminary injunction only on notice to the adverse party and “only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(a)(1), (c). “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy ... never awarded as of right.” Munaf v. Geren,
The first factor, irreparable injury, is the “single most important prerequisite.” Singas,
District Courts should generally consider delay in determining whether to grant a preliminary injunction. See Tom Doherty Assocs., Inc. v. Saban Entertainment, Inc.,
III. Discussion
A. Plaintiff has Failed to Show Irreparable Harm
Plaintiffs argue that “[a] significant number of consumers (both in New York and nationwide) have ingested, and continue to ingest, synthetic and artificial ingredients, including genetically engineered ingredients, that they neither knew about nor consented to, on account of [Defendant’s] false representations.” Pis.’ Br. at 9. While the Complaint alludes to “concerns about food safety, the effect on natural ecosystems, gene flow[,] ... and other issues,” Compl. at ¶ 28, at oral argument, Plaintiffs unequivocally identified the alleged irreparable harm as “the deceptive advertising on the product,” and not any “public health issue.” Hr’g Tr. at 7:18-22. Plaintiffs do not articulate why, or how, this deception amounts to irreparable harm, but merely argue that irreparable harm is “presumed,” Pis.’ Suppl. Br. at 10 — a contention unsupported by established case law. Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ delay in moving the Court for a preliminary injunction weighs heavily against their claim of irreparable injury. Accordingly, as discussed further below, the Court finds Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate irreparable injury and are not entitled to preliminary injunctive relief.
1. Irreparable Injury is a Threshold Requirement and is Not Presumed
Plaintiffs argue in their Reply and Supplemental Briefs that irreparable injury is presumed and need not be proven on a preliminary injunction motion in false advertising cases. See Pis.’ Reply Br. at 7-9; Pis.’ Suppl. Br. at 10. In support of this forgiving standard, Plaintiffs reference New York General Business Law § 349 (“Section 349”), which authorizes injunctive relief by statute, and also cite numerous federal trademark and copyright confusion cases brought by market competitors. Pis.’ Reply Br. at 7-8. Defendant contends this argument is improperly raised because, inter alia, Plaintiffs did not raise the argument in their opening brief, nor did they raise it at oral argument. Def.’s Suppl. Br. at 9 (citing, inter alia, Ocean Partners, LLC v. North River Ins. Co.,
Although Section 349 authorizes injunctive relief by statute, Plaintiffs are proceeding pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which clearly and indisputably requires a showing of irreparable injury. See Baker’s Aid, a Div. of M. Raubvogel Co., Inc. v. Hussmann Foodservice Co.,
Moreover, the Court concludes false advertising or trademark infringement suits brought by market competitors do not support Plaintiffs’ presumptive irreparable injury argument, because such suits are qualitatively different from those brought by consumers, who need not prove lost sales or harm to brand equity. Def.’s Suppl. Br. at 11-12. It is neither difficult nor impossible to prove the losses related to excessive or inflated costs in false advertising suits brought by consumers. Cf. Tough Traveler, Ltd. v. Outbound Products,
2. Plaintiffs’ Unreasonable Delay in Seeking a Preliminary Injunction Destroys Any Presumption of Irreparable Injury
Even if the Court were to conclude Plaintiffs were entitled to a presumption of irreparable injury — and it does not — that presumption would be destroyed by Plaintiffs’ delay in seeking this injunction.
In its opposition papers, Defendant highlights the fact that Plaintiffs waited nearly five months after filing suit to move for a preliminary injunction. Def.’s Opp. Br. at 1. According to Defendant, this delay signals there is no threat of irreparable harm.
In this case, Plaintiffs waited almost five months after initiating this action — longer than the plaintiffs in either Tough Traveler or Marcy Playground — to move for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs contend their delay was reasonable and does not rebut the asserted presumption of irreparable harm. Pis.’ Reply Br. at 6-7. However, the cases Plaintiffs cite offer little support. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ contention, Second Circuit case law clearly provides that any delay in moving for a preliminary injunction “generally destroys the presumption of irreparable harm,” except for the limited exception in which a plaintiff “was unaware of its rights or was actively pursuing its rights.” Kuklachev v. Gelfman,
In the four months after Plaintiffs initiated the instant action, Plaintiffs were neither unaware of, nor were they actively pursuing, their purported right to enjoin Defendant from advertising its products as “All Natural.” Accordingly, Plaintiffs do not qualify for the limited exception to the general rule that delay destroys a presumption of irreparable harm.
In contrast to the cases cited by Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs waited more than four months after filing their complaint to move for a preliminary injunction, although they were under no obligation to await Defendant’s answer before moving.
3. Money Damages Will Adequately Compensate Plaintiff
By arguing that irreparable injury should be presumed, Plaintiffs impliedly concede they cannot demonstrate irreparable harm sufficient to justify a preliminary injunction. Moreover, Plaintiffs make no attempt to argue that they have suffered “irreparable injury,” as that phrase is understood in the context of preliminary injunctions. See Jackson Dairy,
As discussed supra, Plaintiffs unequivocally identified the alleged irreparable harm as “the deceptive advertising on the product.” Hr’g Tr. at 7:18-22.
Defendant argues Plaintiffs may be adequately compensated through money damages, such that injunctive relief is not the only remedy that will cure any alleged irreparable harm. Def.’s Opp. Br. at 10-14. Defendant cites the very strict standard that a plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must meet: “A mandatory injunction may ‘issue only upon a clear showing that the moving party is entitled
Although Plaintiffs dispute the adequacy of money damages, they allude to the fact that Plaintiffs and their proposed class are “paying a premium price” for Defendant’s products, as a result of those products’ “All Natural” branding. Pis.’ Br. at 9. Moreover, in their Complaint, Plaintiffs seek, inter alia, compensatory damages and restitution, see Compl. at 38. Plaintiffs do not allege what this relief would amount to, except to note that “products purported to be ‘natural,’ ... are often priced higher than equivalent organic products.” Id. at ¶ 40. Plaintiffs provide only one example of this supposed higher price, noting that Puffins cost approximately twenty cents more per ounce than one allegedly comparable product, “Nature’s Path unsweetened organic puffs,” which — despite its title — is ostensibly not advertised as being “AU Natural.” Id. Other than this single example, Plaintiffs provide no details illuminating the nature or severity of Plaintiffs’ injury. In light of Plaintiffs’ repeated references to the “premium price” garnered by Defendants through their “All Natural” branding, as well as Plaintiffs’ explicit prayer for compensatory damages, the Court concludes Plaintiffs may be adequately compensated through an award of money damages.
Finally, contrary to Plaintiffs’ contention, the availability of money damages does bar preliminary injunctive relief. See Pis.’ Suppl. Br at 11-12. Three of the four federal cases cited by Plaintiffs are all wholly irrelevant to this issue. Johnson & Johnson v. GAC Int’l, Inc.,
Likewise, the New York state law cases cited by Plaintiffs do not alter the well-established principal that preliminary injunctive relief pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a showing of irreparable harm, which, as discussed supra, means “injury for which a
The Court therefore concludes that money damages may adequately compensate Plaintiffs for any alleged injury. Plaintiffs have failed to cite any authority supporting their contention that the availability of money damages does not preclude this Court from issuing a preliminary injunction. Accordingly, because money damages are available, the alleged injury “is not deemed irreparable and hence does not justify injunctive relief.” Sperry,
B. The Balance of Hardships Favors Defendant
“The Court, having found that Plaintiffs have not demonstrated irreparable injury, need not address the issue of likelihood of success on the merits or the balance of the hardships.” Jessup v. Am. Kennel Club, Inc.,
At oral argument, when asked to address the balance of the hardships, Defendant characterized the relief sought by Plaintiffs as “essentially ... a product recall,” which would be “quite an oppressive order for any court to issue.” Hr’g Tr. at 17:22-25. The relief would be particularly oppressive, Defendant argued, because this is not “a public health case where there [is] actually evidence of people being [physically] injured.” Id. at 18:1-2. Rather, the injuries Plaintiffs allege amount to a false advertising claim, where Plaintiffs and their putative class members were purportedly induced to pay, e.g., “an extra 50 cents because [they] think [Defendant’s product] is natural.” Id. at 18:4-5. Such a claim, Defendants argued, “does not justify the immediate broad recall that the plaintiffs are requesting.” Id. at 18:6-7.
Plaintiffs responded in their supplemental brief that a total product recall is not necessary, and that Defendants could easily comply with Plaintiffs’ motion to eliminate deceptive “All Natural” advertising through the use of stickers concealing allegedly misleading language. See Pis.’ Suppl. Br. at 13-15. Despite the charm of Plaintiffs’ suggested alternative, the Court concludes that the balance of hardships favors Defendant. Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate irreparable injury, have delayed in bringing the instant action, and have failed to cite any authority in support of their contention that they cannot be adequately compensated by monetary damages. By contrast, whether or not Defendant eliminated its allegedly deceptive advertising through the use of stickers, Defendants would be forced to execute product alteration on a national scale in order to remove all references to its products’ “All Natural” ingredients from its product packaging. Prior to an adverse determination on the merits, to order Defendant to alter its product packaging nationally would pose serious hard
IV. Conclusion
As the parties are well aware, a Settlement Agreement is pending in Trammell v. Barbara’s Bakery, Case No. 3:12-cv-02664 (N.D.Cal. May 23, 2012) (Breyer, J.), an earlier-filed case in the Northern District of California (the “Proposed Settlement”). Id. The Proposed Settlement was noticed on both the instant E.D.N.Y. dockets on April 26, 2013, and it includes a motion before the District Court for the Northern District of California to enjoin Moro and Silber. (Silber Dkt. No. 30; Moro Dkt. No. 24.) In its briefing before this Court, Defendant notes Trammell was initiated 5 months before Silber (and 6 months before Moró). Def.’s Opp. Br. at 6-7. The parties in Trammell reached a settlement in principle in January 2013 through arm’s length negotiations, which resulted in a 45-page settlement agreement with hundreds of pages of exhibits, submitted to the Northern District of California District Court on April 19, 2013. Id. The Proposed Settlement contemplates the same relief requested by Plaintiffs here — namely, that the Court enjoin Defendant from using the words “All Natural,” “No Artificial Additives,” “No Artificial Preservatives,” and “No Artificial Flavors” from its product labels and advertisements. Id. at 7. Defendant has already agreed to this condition per the Proposed Settlement, and will be under court order to comply if and when the settlement is approved by the Northern District of California court. Accordingly, although this settlement does not influence this Court’s decision that Plaintiffs are not entitled to preliminary injunctive relief, this Court looks forward with interest to the Northern District of California court’s ruling on the Trammell parties’ motion for preliminary approval of the settlement.
Plaintiffs are required to show, but have not shown, irreparable injury. Rather, Plaintiffs may be adequately compensated through monetary damages. Moreover, Defendant would be severely burdened by having to alter its product packaging on a nationwide scale, which burden would clearly exceed any hardship to the Plaintiffs caused by waiting to adjudicate these cases on their merits, For all these reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Notes
. Silber has defined the Class Period as beginning September 21, 2006 and continuing through the conclusion of this action. Moro has not purported to define any Class Period.
. Silber filed the fully briefed motion on May 1, 2013. See Silber Dkt. No. 31. Moro formally joined in Silber's Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Notice filed May 8, 2013. See Moro Dkt. No. 25.
. Because Silber filed the earlier of the two complaints, and is acting as lead Plaintiff to the instant motion, this Court refers to Silber’s complaint, filed November 5, 2012, as the operative "Complaint,” and to Defendant's answer to Silber's complaint, filed January 29, 2013, as the operative "Answer." See Silber Dkt. Nos. I, 9. Because Moro and Silber have joined in bringing the instant motion, the Court refers to Plaintiffs collectively, except where otherwise noted.
. As Plaintiffs argue, the cited regulations define certain of the listed ingredients as "synthetic” or “chemical preservatives.” See, e.g., 1 C.F.R. § 205.605(b) (defining “ascorbic acid” as "synthetic”), However, the regulations simultaneously note that the ingredients "may be used as ingredients in ... products labeled as 'organic' or ‘made with organic (specified ingredients or food group(s)).” See id. § 205.605 The Court agrees that “a product that is correctly labeled as ‘organic’ is not necessarily also 'natural.' " Pis.’ Suppl. Br. at 7. Nonetheless, particularly because the FDA has chosen not to define “natural” (see infra), the Court considers relevant the FDA's policies governing permitted uses of the ingredients Plaintiffs contend are "unnatural.”
. The Court notes that Holk clearly defined the quoted FDA statement as an "informal policy,” which, the court further concluded, does not constitute a federal law or regulation.
. Plaintiffs argued at oral argument that state legislatures’ failure to regulate GMO transparency supports Plaintiffs’ position that this Court is well situated to render a decision that would effectively regulate how Defendant (and, presumably, other manufacturers of food products) may or may not use the term "natural” to advertise its products. See Hr’g Tr. at 11:20-24 ("where legislation has failed, litigation is the solution here”). The Court disagrees with this logic and declines to render a decision to compensate Plaintiffs for various state legislatures’ failure to act.
. Silber references other types of genetically modified corn in her Complaint, as examples of how corn can be genetically modified. Although Plaintiffs raise these examples, the Court clarifies that the genetically modified corn identified in Defendant’s products was not bred with mouse genes, insect genes, or animal genes, nor was it bred with jellyfish genes so that the corn would glow in the dark. See Compl. at ¶ 33.
. Beyond arguing that Plaintiffs’ delay in pursuing a preliminary injunction negates their assertion of irreparable injury, Defendant contends Plaintiffs initiated this motion upon learning of the nationwide class action settlement in Trammell v. Barbara's Bakery, Case No. 3:12-cv-02664 (N.D.Cal. May 23, 2012) (Breyer, J.), in order to better position themselves to receive portions of the class representative award and attorneys’ fees anticipated in that case. Def.’s Opp. Br. at 1.
. Plaintiffs suggest their delay is partially attributable to Defendant's delay in answering. Pis.’ Reply Br. at 5 ("Silber ... brought her Motion as soon as she could' — waiting only for Barbara’s to file its Answer,” and "Silber spent two ... months anticipating Barbara’s Answer”) However, Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nowhere suggests that a Plaintiff should — or must — wait for a
. Although Plaintiffs also allude to supposed injuries to "competing companies who honestly label their Products,” see Pis.' Suppl. Br. at 10, without standing to sue on those companies’ behalf, these injuries are no more proper than Plaintiffs’ allusion to unsupported health and safety risks related to the consumption of GMOs, see, e.g., Hr’g Tr. at 7:12-23. Thus, the Court accepts Plaintiffs' representation that the injury in this case amounts to "the deception, the deceptive advertising on the product” — and nothing more. Hr'g Tr. at 7:18-20.