Scott Bishop v. 7-Eleven, Inc.

Ninth Circuit

Scott Bishop v. 7-Eleven, Inc.

651 F. App'x 657

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 6, 2016

Docket14-15986

StatusUnpublished

This text of 651 F. App'x 657 (Scott Bishop v. 7-Eleven, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Scott Bishop v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 651 F. App'x 657 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Scott Bishop, a consumer of 7-Eleven brand potato chips, appeals the dismissal of his second amended complaint (SAC) pursuant to- Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C, § 1291, and we reverse.

The district court erred by concluding that the SAC failed to allege facts sufficient to establish statutory standing under California’s unfair competition law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq., false advertising law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq. At this preliminary stage of the action, Bishop sufficiently alleged actual reliance, which he was required to do under each of his theories because his claims sound in fraud. See Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4th 310, 120 Cal.Rptr.3d 741, 246 P.3d 877, 888 n. 9 (2011); In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298, 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 559, 207 P.3d 20, 39 n. 17 (2009). Bishop adequately alleged that he relied on 7-Eleven’s potato chips’ front of package “Og trans fat” and “no cholesterol” representations, and that he would not have purchased the chips had 7-Eleven included on the front of the package the “See nutrition information for fat content” disclosure required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. See 21 C.F.R. §§ 101.18(h)(1), 101.62(d)(i)(ii)(D); see also Reid v. Johnson & Johnson, 780 F.3d 952, 958 (9th Cir.2015) ( [T]he reasonable consumer standard, unlike the individual reliance requirement ..., is not a standing requirement.”). California’s consumer protection statutes render statements actionable which, although not technically false, have a tendency to mislead consumers because the statements fail to disclose or direct the consumer’s attention to other relevant information. See Davis v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., 691 F.3d 1152, 1162 (9th Cir. 2012); Day v. AT & T Corp., 63 Cal.App.4th 325, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 55, 60 (1998).

REVERSED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM *

Scott Bishop, a consumer of 7-Eleven brand potato chips, appeals the dismissal of his second amended complaint (SAC) pursuant to- Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C, § 1291, and we reverse.

The district court erred by concluding that the SAC failed to allege facts sufficient to establish statutory standing under California’s unfair competition law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq., false advertising law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq. At this preliminary stage of the action, Bishop sufficiently alleged actual reliance, which he was required to do under each of his theories because his claims sound in fraud. See Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4th 310, 120 Cal.Rptr.3d 741, 246 P.3d 877, 888 n. 9 (2011); In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298, 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 559, 207 P.3d 20, 39 n. 17 (2009). Bishop adequately alleged that he relied on 7-Eleven’s potato chips’ front of package “Og trans fat” and “no cholesterol” representations, and that he would not have purchased the chips had 7-Eleven included on the front of the package the “See nutrition information for fat content” disclosure required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. See 21 C.F.R. §§ 101.18(h)(1), 101.62(d)(i)(ii)(D); see also Reid v. Johnson & Johnson, 780 F.3d 952, 958 (9th Cir.2015) ( [T]he reasonable consumer standard, unlike the individual reliance requirement ..., is not a standing requirement.”). California’s consumer protection statutes render statements actionable which, although not technically false, have a tendency to mislead consumers because the statements fail to disclose or direct the consumer’s attention to other relevant information. See Davis v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., 691 F.3d 1152, 1162 (9th Cir. 2012); Day v. AT & T Corp., 63 Cal.App.4th 325, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 55, 60 (1998).

REVERSED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

651 F. App'x 657, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-bishop-v-7-eleven-inc-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack