Banta Yoshida v. Campbell Soup Company

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 KYLE BANTA YOSHIDA, et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-09458-JD

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE MOTIONS TO DISMISS 9 v. AND STAY

10 CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY, Defendant. 11

12 This is a putative class action brought by consumers against defendant Campbell Soup 13 Company (Campbell) for providing deceptive and misleading labeling on its V8 fruit and 14 vegetable juices. The Court granted Campbell’s prior motion to dismiss the complaint, and gave 15 plaintiffs leave to amend. Dkt. No. 40. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, Dkt. No. 45 (FAC), 16 and Campbell has asked again to dismiss, Dkt. No. 48. The parties’ familiarity with the record is 17 assumed, and the FAC is dismissed with leave to amend. 18 The initial complaint alleged that the sugars occurring naturally in the fruits and vegetables 19 used in Campbell’s V8 juices made label phrases such as “boost your morning nutrition” and 20 “healthy greens” deceptive to consumers. Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 1. In effect, plaintiffs suggested that fruit 21 and vegetable juices with no sugar added during processing were inherently unsafe for people to 22 drink. Dismissal was warranted as “[n]o reasonable consumer would be misled by the challenged 23 phrases because the actual sugar content is plainly stated on the labels, along with disclosures of 24 beneficial vitamin and nutrient content.” Dkt. No. 40 at 1. 25 The FAC did not materially improve this shortfall. As before, plaintiffs take issue with the 26 labels’ promise that the V8 juices will “boost your morning nutrition,” Dkt. No. 45 ¶ 18, citing 27 health risks said to be associated with the consumption of fruit juices. See, e.g., id. ¶ 21 1 counterproductive to overall health in some categories”) (internal quotation omitted). The new 2 allegations in the FAC are that the labels depict “fresh whole fruit and vegetables,” id. ¶ 19, say 3 that the juices contain a number of servings of vegetables and fruit, and state that “[d]ietary 4 guidelines recommend 2½ cups of a variety of vegetables and 2 cups of fruit per day for a 2,000 5 calorie diet,” id. ¶ 17 (internal quotation omitted). Plaintiffs say that this would mislead a 6 reasonable consumer into believing that V8 juices “provide the same or similar health benefits as 7 eating healthy whole fruits and vegetables.” Id. ¶ 20. 8 These new allegations suffer from the same concern that sank the initial complaint, namely 9 that a reasonable consumer would not believe that a container of processed juice sold on a 10 grocery’s dry goods shelf would provide the same benefits as eating a fresh and unprocessed fruit 11 or vegetable. See Brady v. Bayer Corp., 26 Cal. App. 5th 1156, 1165 (2018). It may be, as 12 plaintiffs suggest, that whole fruits are loaded with fiber, while V8 juices contain scant fiber, Dkt. 13 No. 45 ¶¶ 22-24, but no reasonable consumer would understand otherwise. The labels expressly 14 advise consumers about the negligible amount of dietary fiber in the juices. See Dkt. No. 45-1. 15 To be sure, a consumer might grab a bottle of juice off the aisle as a quick nutritional hit, but to 16 say that Campbell misled consumers into thinking that its juices and fresh produce were 17 equivalents goes too far in light of the information disclosed on the labels. 18 Campbell’s use of the phrase “boost your morning nutrition” does lead to a different 19 conclusion. Plaintiffs say the phrase is misleading because fruit juice is not as healthy as whole 20 fruit and regular consumption of fruit juice carries health risks. Dkt. No. 45 ¶¶ 33-34. Again, 21 maybe so, but the phrase does not convey that it is as healthy as whole fruit. That is all the more 22 true in that the phrase is next to the disclosures of the juice’s vitamin and nutrient content, which 23 plainly state exactly the nutritional values the consumer would get. See Becerra v. Dr 24 Pepper/Seven Up, Inc., 945 F.3d 1225, 1229 (9th Cir. 2019). 25 While the question of consumer deception can be a factual matter unsuitable for resolution 26 on a pleadings motion, see Milan v. Clif Bar & Co., No. 18-cv-02354-JD, 2019 WL 3934918, at 27 *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2019), plaintiffs have not alleged “factual content that allows the court to 1 by “judicial experience and common sense.” Cannara v. Nemeth, 467 F. Supp. 3d 877, 882 (N.D. 2 |} Cal. 2020) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009)), aff'd, 21 F.4th 1169 (9th Cir. 3 || 2021). In light of plaintiffs’ prior opportunities to amend, a dismissal of the case would be 4 || permissible at this time. Even so, the Court will allow plaintiffs one final opportunity to plausibly 5 allege a claim against Campbell. There may be circumstances in which relevant survey data can 6 || “make plausible the allegation that reasonable consumers are misled by” a product’s labels and 7 || representations. Becerra, 945 F.3d at 1231. The FAC has not demonstrated that, but the Court 8 cannot say at this point that it is impossible for plaintiffs to do. 9 Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint by January 3, 2022, that is consistent with this 10 || order. A failure to meet this deadline will result in a dismissal of the case with prejudice under 11 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). As before, the Court declines to reach Campbell’s 12 || contention that plaintiffs’ claims are preempted. Dkt. No. 40 at 2; Dkt. No. 48 at 12. Campbell’s 13 request for judicial notice, Dkt. No. 49, is denied. Campbell’s request to stay discovery, Dkt. No. 14 || 55, is granted. Pleadings motions typically do not stay discovery, and it is not the Court’s usual 15 practice to do so, but the circumstances here warrant a stay until a plausible claim is stated. a 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 17 || Dated: December 2, 2022 18 19 JAMES/PDONATO 20 United Btates District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28