Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02256/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02256-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RYAN EDMUNSON, On Behalf of 

Himself, All Others Similarly Situated and 

the General Public, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, 

Defendant. 

CASE NO: 10-CV-2256-IEG (NLS) 

ORDER GRANTING 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 

DISMISS 

[Doc. No. 27] 

Presently before the Court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended 

Complaint. [Doc. No. 27.] For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion. 

BACKGROUND

The general factual background will not be repeated in detail here, as it is fully set forth in the 

Court’s May 17, 2011, Order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s initial complaint. 

[Doc. No. 24.] In sum, named plaintiff Ryan Edmunson alleges Proctor & Gamble (“P&G”) has 

deceptively advertised that its Fusion Power razor cartridges are superior to its Fusion manual razor 

cartridges, when, in fact, the two types of razors are functionally identical. Plaintiff alleges P&G’s 

advertising induced him, and other consumers, to purchase Fusion Power cartridges, which cost 

approximately 20% more than Fusion manual cartridges. The essential facts related to P&G’s 

Case 3:10-cv-02256-IEG-NLS Document 31 Filed 09/08/11 Page 1 of 5
 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

packaging, advertisements, and general messaging remain unchanged in the FAC, and the FAC does 

not rely upon any new or different packaging or manufacturer representations. 

Plaintiff’s initial complaint raised three causes of action: (1) Violations of California’s Unfair 

Competition Law (“UCL”), (2) Violations of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), 

and (3) Breach of Express Warranty. After the Court dismissed all three claims, Plaintiff filed the 

FAC, which re-alleges only the claims under the UCL and the CLRA. Defendant now moves to 

dismiss the FAC, and asks the Court to dismiss with prejudice. 

LEGAL STANDARD

A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure tests the 

legal sufficiency of the claims asserted in the complaint. Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 731 (9th Cir. 

2001). “Dismissal can be based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient 

facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.” Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 

(9th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted). Leave to amend should be granted unless the defect is not curable. 

See Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1108 (9th Cir. 2003). 

The Court must accept all factual allegations pleaded in the complaint as true and draw all 

reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. See Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 

336, 337-38 (9th Cir. 1996). The Court need not, however, accept legal conclusions as true. See 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ---U.S.---, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the 

‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic 

recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 

544, 555 (2007) (citation omitted). The complaint must contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief 

that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the pleaded factual 

content allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct 

alleged.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1940. 

DISCUSSION

In the initial complaint, Plaintiff’s UCL and CLRA claims were based on the allegation that 

P&G’s advertising conveys two false messages: (1) Fusion Power razors are superior to Fusion manual 

razors, and (2) Fusion Power handles only function with Fusion Power cartridges, or, in other words, 

Case 3:10-cv-02256-IEG-NLS Document 31 Filed 09/08/11 Page 2 of 5
 3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

they are not compatible with Fusion manual cartridges. In its order granting dismissal with leave to 

amend, the Court held the alleged message of product superiority was nonactionable puffery, and, 

while the compatibility message was actionable, Plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to satisfy Rule 

9(b). In this motion to dismiss, P&G argues that it did not make either of the complained-of 

representations; even if it did represent that one of its razors is superior to the other, that message is 

still puffery; and Plaintiff’s amended complaint still fails to satisfy Rule 9(b). 

In the FAC, and his Opposition, Plaintiff clarifies that the alleged compatibility message 

depends on the alleged superiority message. [See Pl.’s Opp’n, at 3 (“[T]he ‘compatibility’ allegations 

are not to be read separate and apart from the ‘superiority’ allegations. . . . P&G misrepresents . . . that 

its Fusion Power blades are required for use with the Fusion power handle in order to obtain a 

superior shave as claimed by P&G.” (emphasis added)); see FAC, ¶¶ 2, 18.] Thus, none of Plaintiff’s 

claims can survive unless the alleged superiority message is actionable. It is not. 

 “[A] statement that is quantifiable, that makes a claim as to the ‘specific or absolute 

characteristics of a product,’ may be an actionable statement of fact while a general, subjective claim 

about a product is non-actionable puffery.” Newcal Indus., Inc. v. Ikon Office Solution, 513 F.3d 1038, 

1053 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Cook, Perkiss, & Liehe v. N. Cal. Collection Serv., Inc., 911 F.2d 242, 

245 (9th Cir. 1990)). Absent incorporation of objective, measurable criteria, subjective claims of 

product superiority are nonactionable puffery. See id.; Southland Sod Farms v. Stover Seed Co., 108 

F.3d 1134, 1145 (9th Cir. 1997); see also Pizza Hut, Inc. v. Papa John’s Int’l, Inc., 227 F.3d 489, 501-

02 (5th Cir. 2000); Castrol Inc. v. Pennzoil Co., 987 F.2d 939, 945-46 (3d Cir. 1993). 

 In previously holding that the alleged superiority message was mere puffery, the Court 

underscored the message’s inherent subjectivity, noting that the “complaint suggests no way to 

objectively measure whether Fusion Power razors are different from or superior to the Fusion manual 

blades.” [Doc. No. 24, at 7.] The FAC attempts to impose an air of objectivity on the alleged 

superiority message by pointing to four objective measures of a shave’s quality: (1) closeness—

“measured by the length of the beard hair left after shaving,” (2) pressure—“measured by the force 

required to cut beard hair,” (3) skin irritation—measured “by nicks, cuts and micro-abrasions on the 

skin after shaving and by the amount of pull on the beard hairs,” and (4) comfort, “a function of 

Case 3:10-cv-02256-IEG-NLS Document 31 Filed 09/08/11 Page 3 of 5
 4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

closeness, pressure and irritation and . . . a relative descriptor that can be otherwise measured.” [FAC 

¶ 23; see also id. ¶¶ 2-3, 7, 17, 21-25.] Plaintiff argues those criteria are appropriate because they 

correspond with “common experience” and P&G itself used them in its patent for the teleomer coating 

used on the Fusion Power razors. [See Pl.’s Opp’n, at 12-13.] 

In purchasing Fusion products, however, Plaintiff alleges he and other consumers relied on 

product packaging and advertisements, not patents issued to P&G. Plaintiff does not allege that P&G’s 

advertisements or packaging listed, referenced, or otherwise incorporated its patents or any criteria for 

measuring a “better” shave. Thus, the alleged superiority representation is neither quantifiable nor 

related to an absolute characteristic of the razor cartridges; such subjective representations of product 

superiority are mere puffery. See Newcal Indus., 513 F.3d at 1053 (holding representations of “low 

costs” and “flexibility” the cost structure of contracts were puffery because they were not quantifiable); 

Southland Sod, 108 F.3d at 1145 (holding “less is more” is not measurable and thus nonactionable 

puffery, while “50% less mowing” is “a specific and measurable advertisement claim of product 

superiority based on product testing and, as such, is not puffery”); In re Sony Grand Wega KDF-E 

A10/A20 Series Rear Projection HDTV Television Litig., 758 F. Supp. 2d 1077, 1089 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 

30, 2010) (holding representations of a product’s “high” or “superior” quality amounted to puffery); 

see also Pizza Hut, 227 F.3d at 501-02 (finding the slogan “Better Ingredients. Better Pizza.” to be 

actionable only because it was used in advertisements referencing specific ingredients, and thus “gave 

quantifiable meaning to the word ‘Better’”); Castrol, 987 F.2d at 945-46 (finding a motor oil 

producer’s representation of “superior engine protection” actionable only because it expressly 

referenced comparative scientific testing of a particular type of engine wear). 

Plaintiff’s UCL and CLRA claims all stem from the alleged representation that Fusion Power 

razors are superior to Fusion manual razors. That representation is nonactionable puffery. Thus, 

Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

Case 3:10-cv-02256-IEG-NLS Document 31 Filed 09/08/11 Page 4 of 5
 5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CONCLUSION

 For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiff’s 

complaint is dismissed WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk shall terminate this Action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: _______________________________ 

 IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge 

 United States District Court 

 

9/8/11

Case 3:10-cv-02256-IEG-NLS Document 31 Filed 09/08/11 Page 5 of 5