Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01328/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01328-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332pl Diversity-Product Liability

---

1

18cv1328-WQH-BGS

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

ANTHONY BUSO, individually 

and on behalf of all others 

similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

VIGO IMPORTING CO., a 

Florida corporation; and DOES 1 

through 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18cv1328-WQH-BGS

ORDER

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b) filed by Defendant Vigo Importing Co. (ECF No. 12). 

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On June 19, 2018, Plaintiff Anthony Buso (Buso) initiated this action on behalf of 

himself and others similarly situated by filing the Class Action Complaint against 

Defendant Vigo Importing Co. (Vigo). (ECF No. 1). Buso brings a cause of action for 

violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). Cal. Civ. Code §§ 

1770(a)(5), (a)(9). Buso alleges violations of the California Fair Packaging and Labeling 

Act (CFPLA). Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 12606.2(b)–(c). Buso alleges that Vigo’s 

Case 3:18-cv-01328-WQH-BGS Document 22 Filed 11/28/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 12
2

18cv1328-WQH-BGS

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

product, Alessi Autentico Premium Risotto with Porcini Mushrooms (the Risotto mix), is 

sold in packaging with over 70 percent empty space, known as slack fill. (ECF No. 1 at 2–

3). Buso alleges that the slack fill violates California’s consumer protection, labeling, and 

unfair competition laws. Id. at 3, 12. Buso seeks class certification, declaratory relief, 

injunctive relief, restitution and other equitable relief, compensatory and punitive damages, 

prejudgment interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. Id. at 13.

On July 17, 2018, Vigo filed a Motion to Dimiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b). (ECF No. 12). Vigo asserts that the Complaint fails to allege 

facts showing that a reasonable consumer would be deceived by the packaging of the 

Risotto mix, or that the packaging of the Risotto mix contains nonfunctional slack fill. On 

August 6, 2018, Buso filed a response in opposition to the Motion (ECF No. 20),

accompanied by a request for judicial notice (ECF Nos. 20-1). Buso asserts that sufficient 

facts were alleged in the Complaint to show that the packaging and slack fill of the Risotto 

mix may lead reasonable consumers to believe that the packages contain more product than 

is actually sold in the package. On August 13, 2018, Vigo filed a reply (ECF No. 21), 

accompanied by the Declaration of Robert J. Guite (ECF No. 21-1) and supporting 

exhibits.

1

 

II. ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT

Buso “charges Defendant with unlawfully and unfairly packaging its Alessi 

Autentico Premium Risotto products in opaque containers that contain more than 70% 

empty space.” ECF No. 1 ¶ 1; see also ¶¶ 16–17 (“Defendant’s . . . Risotto products are, 

and at all relevant times were, sold in non-transparent containers. . . . More than 70% of 

the interior of the . . . containers . . . is comprised of empty space, or nonfunctional slack 

fill.”). Buso alleges he “purchased Defendant’s Alessi Autentico Premium Risotto with

Porcini Mushrooms product in September 2017 in San Diego, California. . . . for the dual 

 

1 The Court does not consider the declaration or exhibits attached to the Reply. 

Case 3:18-cv-01328-WQH-BGS Document 22 Filed 11/28/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 12
3

18cv1328-WQH-BGS

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

purpose of enjoying its contents and determining whether the container was lawfully 

filled.” Id. ¶ 3. Buso alleges he “was surprised when he opened the product that the 

container had more than 70% empty space, or slack-fill.” Id. 

The Complaint lists provisions of the CFPLA, including a list of permitted purposes 

for slack fill. Id. ¶¶ 13–14. Buso alleges, “None of the above safe-harbor provisions 

applies to the Alessi Autentico Premium Risotto products. Defendant intentionally 

incorporated non-functional slackfill in its packaging of the Alessi Autentico Premium 

Risotto products. As such, the packaging is per se illegal, and reliance upon the packaging 

by absent class members is presumed.” Id. ¶ 15. 

Buso includes the following photographs: 

Id. ¶ 17. Buso alleges that “[t]he containers (1) do not allow consumers to fully view its 

contents; and (2) contain[] nonfunctional slack fill. As such, the packaging is per se illegal.” 

Id. ¶ 18. Buso alleges, “Defendant is selling and will continue to sell the Alessi Autentico

Premium Risotto products using these illegal slack-filled containers,” and that 

“Defendant’s packaging and advertising of the Alessi Autentico Premium Risotto products 

violate the CFPLA.” Id. ¶¶ 19–20. Buso alleges that “[t]here is no practical reason for the 

non-functional slack-fill used to package the Alessi Autentico Premium Risotto products.” 

Id. ¶ 23. Buso alleges, “As a result of Defendant’s illegal packaging, thousands of 

Case 3:18-cv-01328-WQH-BGS Document 22 Filed 11/28/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 12
4

18cv1328-WQH-BGS

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

consumers purchased the Products and have been damaged by Defendant’s illegal 

conduct.” Id. ¶ 24.

Buso brings this action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

23(b) on behalf of himself, and on behalf of the class defined as “All California residents 

who made retail purchases of Defendant’s Alessi Autentico Premium Risotto products with 

non-functional slack-fill, as defined by California Business & Professions Code § 12606.2, 

during the applicable limitations period up to and including final judgment in this action.” 

Id. ¶¶ 25, 40. 

Buso alleges, “Plaintiff and the Class suffered injuries caused by Defendant because 

the Alessi Autentico Premium Risotto product did not have the qualities as promised and 

were unlawfully packaged.” Id. ¶ 48. Buso alleges “Defendant violated California law 

because the Alessi Autentico Premium Risotto products are packaged in containers made, 

formed or filled to contain nonfunctional slack-fill.” Id. ¶ 44. Buso alleges that Vigo’s 

conduct “violated and continues to violate” the CLRA at Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1770(a)(5), (9). 

Id. ¶¶ 45–46. Buso alleges compliance with the CLRA notice letter requirements at Cal. 

Civ. Code § 1782(a), and provides a copy of the related letter. Id. ¶ 49; Ex. 1 to Compl., 

ECF 1-2. 

III. LEGAL STANDARDS

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) permits dismissal for “failure to state a 

claim upon which relief can be granted.” In order to state a claim for relief, a pleading 

“must contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is 

entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) “is proper only 

where there is no cognizable legal theory or an absence of sufficient facts alleged to support 

a cognizable legal theory.” Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Servs., Inc., 622 F.3d 1035, 

1041 (9th Cir. 2010) (quotation omitted). 

Stating a claim for relief “requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic 

recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). When considering a motion to 

Case 3:18-cv-01328-WQH-BGS Document 22 Filed 11/28/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 12
5

18cv1328-WQH-BGS

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

dismiss, a court must accept as true all “well-pleaded factual allegations.” Ashcroft v. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). “Determining whether a complaint states plausible claim 

for relief is ‘a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 

experience and common sense.’” Ebner v. Fresh, Inc., 838 F.3d 958, 963 (9th Cir. 2016) 

(quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679). 

“In sum, for a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss, the non-conclusory factual 

content, and reasonable inferences from that content, must be plausibly suggestive of a 

claim entitling the plaintiff to relief.” Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th 

Cir. 2009) (quotations omitted). If both parties advance plausible alternative explanations, 

then the “plaintiff’s complaint survives a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6),” because 

“[t]he standard at this stage of the litigation is not that plaintiff’s explanation must be true 

or even probable. Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216–17 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Plaintiff’s 

complaint may be dismissed only when defendant’s plausible alternative explanation is so 

convincing that plaintiff’s explanation is im plausible.”).

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Reasonable Consumer Standard

Vigo contends that no reasonable consumer would be misled by the packaging of 

the Risotto mix. (ECF No. 12-1 at 11). Vigo asserts that the packaging accurately states 

the weight of the product and the instructions to prepare the product for consumption. Vigo 

contends that reasonable consumers do not expect to open the packaging and begin to eat 

the product immediately. Vigo asserts that the size of the packaging bears little relationship 

to the quantity of prepared product. Vigo contends that the reasonable consumer is on 

notice of any empty space in the Risotto product package. Vigo asserts that the bag is 

flexible, the contents are readily felt, and the fill level is readily perceptible. 

Buso contends that the reasonable customer is not required to be particularly wary, 

vigilant, suspicious, or experienced at inspecting or judging products. (ECF No. 20 at 17–

18). Buso contends that the expectations of the reasonable consumer are typically not 

decided at the motion to dismiss stage. Buso contends that the claim survives if the Risotto 

Case 3:18-cv-01328-WQH-BGS Document 22 Filed 11/28/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 12
6

18cv1328-WQH-BGS

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 may mislead consumers. Buso asserts that the size of the packaging creates an 

inaccurate impression of the quantity of product the consumer is purchasing. Buso asserts 

that slack fill cases are actionable under California law. Buso contends that accurate 

labeling cannot overcome misleading packaging for purposes of CLRA liability. 

The CLRA prohibits “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or 

practices.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1770. The CLRA specifically prohibits “[r]epresenting that 

goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, 

or quantities that they do not have,” and “[a]dvertising goods or services with intent not to 

sell them as advertised.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1770(a)(5), (9). Under the California consumer 

protection statutes, the design, packaging, or labeling of a product is deceptive or 

misleading if a reasonable consumer would likely be deceived. Ebner, 838 F.3d at 965–

67 (citing Williams v. Gerber Products Co., 552 F.3d 934, 938 (9th Cir. 2008)). The 

possibility a few consumer might conceivably misunderstand when viewing the product in 

an unreasonable manner is insufficient. Id. at 965. The complaint must demonstrate “a 

probability ‘that a significant portion of the general consuming public or of targeted

consumers, acting reasonably in the circumstances, could be misled.’” Id. (quoting Lavie 

v. Procter & Gamble Co., 129 Cal. Rptr.2d 486, 495 (2003)). 

“California courts have recognized that whether a business practice is deceptive will 

usually be a question of fact not appropriate for decision on demurrer.” Williams, 552 F.3d 

at 939; accord Linear Tech. Corp. v. Applied Materials, Inc., 61 Cal. Rptr. 3d 221, 236 (Ct. 

App. 2007). Dismissal is appropriate, however, if the complaint does not plausibly allege 

that a reasonable consumer could be misled or deceived by a product’s design, packaging, 

or labeling. Ebner, 838 F.3d at 965, 967; see also Forouzesh v. Starbucks Corp., No. 

CV16-3830PA(AGRx), 2016 WL 4443203, at *3 (concluding that “[i]f children have 

figured out that including ice in a cold beverage decreases the amount of liquid they will 

receive,” a reasonable customer is not “deceived into believing that Defendant’s Cold 

Drinks contain 12 ounces of beverage excluding ice for a ‘Tall,’” or the number of ounces 

corresponding to the other sizes).

Case 3:18-cv-01328-WQH-BGS Document 22 Filed 11/28/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 12
7

18cv1328-WQH-BGS

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

In Williams, the court declined to dismiss claims alleging that the packaging of 

Gerber’s Fruit Juice Snacks was deceptive. 552 F.3d at 936. In addition to the product 

name “Fruit Juice Snacks,” the packaging featured pictures of fruits, stated the snacks 

contained “fruit juice and other natural ingredients,” and stated the snacks were 

“specifically designed to help toddlers grow up strong and healthy.” Id. at 936, 939. The 

court concluded that an ingredient list accurately identifying the snack’s main ingredients

as sugar and corn syrup did not overcome the deception created by the packaging, which 

led consumers to believe the snacks were made from natural ingredients like the pictured 

fruit. Id.; see also Reid v. Johnson & Johnson, 780 F.3d 952, 959 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[I]t is 

far from clear that typical consumers understand that a product containing partially 

hydrogenated vegetable oil necessarily has trans fat, so even if an ingredient list has a 

curative effect in some cases . . . . Reid’s allegations of misrepresentations are plausible

enough to survive a motion to dismiss.”); contra Stiles v. Trader Joe’s Co., No. CV 16-

04318TJH(KSx), 2017 WL 3084267, at *4–5 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2017) (concluding oatmeal 

package’s “maple” labeling would not lead reasonable consumers to believe the product 

contained maple syrup and maple sugar, notwithdstanding the illustration of the oatmeal 

covered in a brown substance; unlike Williams, brown substance was not readily 

identifiable, and the ambiguity would lead the consumer to the accurate ingredients list).

In Ebner, the plaintiffs claimed that reasonable consumers were deceived by the 

omission of label disclosures, and the oversized packaging, of a tube of lip product. 838 

F.3d at 965. The Court of Appeals explained that for purposes of the reasonable consumer 

test, “Williams stands for the proposition that if the defendant commits an act of deception, 

the presence of fine print revealing the truth is insufficient to dispel that deception.” Id. at 

966. The Ebner court concluded that reasonable consumers would not need supplemental 

label disclosures to avoid being deceived “as to the amount of lip product in a tube.” Id. at 

965. The tube label accurately disclosed the correct weight of the product, meaning that 

“there is no deceptive act to be dispelled.” Id. at 966. The tube featured a “stop device 

preventing [some] product from advancing up the tube,” but the stop device was a market 

Case 3:18-cv-01328-WQH-BGS Document 22 Filed 11/28/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 12
8

18cv1328-WQH-BGS

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

standard. Id. The product left in the tube was also visible to the consumer; the court 

concluded that “[a] rational consumer would not simply assume that the tube contains no 

further product when he or she can plainly see the surface of the [product].” Id. 

The court applied the same reasoning to the claim that “the tube’s screw mechanism, 

the 5.35 gram metallic bottom, and the oversized tube and cardboard packaging all 

contribute to the misleading impression of a larger quantity of lip product than is actually 

included.” Id. at 967. The court concluded additional weight from the metallic bottom 

was not misleading, due to the accurate net weight label and the commonality of “elaborate 

packaging” practices in the market. Id. (“[N]o reasonable consumer expects the weight or

overall size of the packaging to reflect directly the quantity of product contained therein.”). 

In this case, as in Ebner, “there is no deceptive act to be dispelled.” Id. at 966. The 

net weight on the label is accurately stated. Cases assessing claims of consumer deception 

for nonpliable packaging through which a consumer cannot evaluate the amount of product, 

and the amount of slack fill, are not persuasive. See, e.g., Escobar v. Just Born Inc., No. 

CV17-01826BRO(PJWx), 2017 WL 5125740, at *7 (C.D. Cal. June 12, 2017) (candy sold 

in opaque boxes); Daniel v. Tootsie Roll Indus., LLC, No. 17 Civ. 7541(NRB), 2018 WL 

3650015, at *11–14 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2018) (same); Bratton v. Hershey Co., No. 2:16-

CV-4322-C-NKL, 2017 WL 2126864, at *1 (W.D. Mo. May 16, 2017) (same); Izquierdo 

v. Mondelez Int’l, Inc., No. 16-cv-04697(CM), 2016 WL 6459832, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 

26, 2016) (same); Samet v. Procter & Gamble Co., No. 5:12-cv-01891PSG, 2013 WL 

3124647, at *9 (N.D. Cal. June 18, 2013) (potato chips sold in an air-filled bag); Hendricks 

v. Starkist Co., 30 F. Supp. 3d 917, 931 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (tuna sold in a can); In re 

McCormick & Co., Inc., Pepper Prods. Mktg. & Sales Practice Litig., 215 F. Supp. 3d 51, 

62 (D.D.C. 2016) (pepper sold in a tin); Jackie Arcala, et al. v. Golden Grain Co., et al., 

Case 3:18-cv-01328-WQH-BGS Document 22 Filed 11/28/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 12
9

18cv1328-WQH-BGS

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

Case No. CGC–16-555084, slip op. (Cal. Super. Ct. Apr. 5, 2017) (grain-based products 

sold in boxes).

2

In this case, the package is pliable. The consumer can see and feel the package and 

perceive the amount of product in the package before purchasing the Risotto mix. A 

reasonable consumer consumer feels the amount of product in the package when picking 

it up off the shelf and could not plausibly be misled by the packaging of the Risotto mix. 

Buso’s allegations are insufficient to state a CLRA claim. 3 

B. Nonfunctional Slack Fill 

Vigo contends that Buso makes no specific factual allegations that the Risotto mix 

has nonfunctional slack fill. (ECF No. 12-1 at 14). Vigo contends that the Risotto mix 

falls within several permitted categories for slack fill under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 

12606.2(c). Vigo contends the slack fill protects the contents of the packaging during 

manufacturing, transportation, and distribution as permitted by § 12606.2(c)(1). Vigo 

contends the slack fill is required for the machinery used to seal the Risotto mix as 

permitted by § 12606.2(c)(2). Vigo contends the slack fill is due to the product settling 

during transportation as permitted by § 12606.2(c)(3). Vigo contends the slack fill allows 

the package to perform the specific function of preventing spills when the customer opens 

the Risotto mix, as permitted by § 12606.2(c)(4). Vigo contends the manufacturing process 

requires the slack fill because current equipment cannot accommodate changes to the size 

of the slack fill or packaging, as permitted by § 12606.2(c)(6). Vigo asserts that the 

 

2 Plaintiff requests the Court take judicial notice of the case Jackie Arcala, et al. v. Golden Grain Co., et 

al., Case No. CGC–16-555084, slip op. (Cal. Super. Ct. Apr. 5, 2017). The Court grants Plaintiff’s request 

for judicial notice. See U.S. ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 

248 (9th Cir. 1992) (permitting judicial notice of “proceedings in other courts, both within and without 

the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue”) (citation and 

internal quotations omitted).

3 The Complaint does not satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8. The Court does not address whether 

the Complaint also fails to satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 9(b). 

Case 3:18-cv-01328-WQH-BGS Document 22 Filed 11/28/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 12
10

18cv1328-WQH-BGS

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 is soft, and consumers can evaluate the fill level of the product by seeing and 

touching the packaging.

Buso contends that legal precedent instructs the Court to deny the motion to dismiss, 

regardless of Vigo’s assertion of § 12606.2(c) safe harbors—the list of permissible reasons 

for slack fill. (ECF No. 20 at 13). Buso contends that the safe harbors do not justify the 

alleged slack fill level in excess of 70 percent.

At all times relevant to this action, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 12606.2(c) stated,

A container that does not allow the consumer to fully view its contents shall

be considered to be filled as to be misleading if it contains nonfunctional slack 

fill. Slack fill is the difference between the actual capacity of a container and 

the volume of product contained therein. Nonfunctional slack fill is the empty 

space in a package that is filled to substantially less than its capacity for 

reasons other than any one or more of the following:

(1) Protection of the contents of the package.

(2) The requirements of the machines used for enclosing the contents 

in the package.

(3) Unavoidable product settling during shipping and handling.

(4) The need for the package to perform a specific function, such as 

where packaging plays a role in the preparation or consumption of 

a food, if that function is inherent to the nature of the food and is 

clearly communicated to consumers.

(5) The fact that the product consists of a food packaged in a reusable 

container where the container is part of the presentation of the food 

and has value that is both significant in proportion to the value of 

the product and independent of its function to hold the food, such 

as a gift product consisting of a food or foods combined with a 

container that is intended for further use after the food is consumed 

or durable commemorative or promotional packages.

(6) Inability to increase the level of fill or to further reduce the size of 

the package, such as where some minimum package size is 

necessary to accommodate required food labeling exclusive of any 

vignettes or other nonmandatory designs or label information, 

discourage pilfering, facilitate handling, or accommodate tamperresistant devices.

In this case, the soft packaging of the Risotto mix allows consumers to perceive the amount 

of product the package contains, even if the package is opaque. The consumer is able to 

Case 3:18-cv-01328-WQH-BGS Document 22 Filed 11/28/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of

 12
11

18cv1328-WQH-BGS

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

assess the amount of product before purchasing the Risotto mix. The Complaint does not 

adequately allege that the packaging of the Risotto mix is “[a] container that does not allow 

the consumer to fully view its contents” within the meaning of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 

12606.2(c). 

Even if the ability to “fully view” a container’s contents is interepreted to require a

transparent container, the Complaint does not adequately allege that the slack fill is 

nonfunctional. The Complaint states that “Defendant intentionally incorporated nonfunctional slackfill in its packaging of the Alessi Autentico Premium Risotto products,” 

and that “[t]here is no practical reason for the non-functional slack-fill used to package the 

Alessi Autentico Premium Risotto products.” (ECF No. 1 at 6, 8). The Complaint refers 

to the empty space as nonfunctional slack fill multiple times. Id. at 6–8, 10, 12. The 

Complaint lists the statutory provisions at Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 12606.2(c) and states, 

“None of the above safe-harbor provisions applies to the Alessi Autentico Premium Risotto 

products.” Id. at 6. The Complaint does not allege facts to support the conclusion that the 

slack fill is nonfunctional, or facts to show that the safe harbors do not apply. The 

allegations are insufficient to state a claim. See Martinez-Leander v. Wellnx Life Scis., 

Inc., No. CV16-08220SJO(EX), 2017 WL 2616918, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2017)

(“[A]fter reciting the language of the statute and its fifteen exceptions, Plaintiff concludes 

that the Defendants did not meet any of these exceptions, and ‘lacked any lawful 

justification’ for the empty space. These allegations, conclusory and bereft of factual 

support, are insufficient to state a claim.”) (citation omitted); see also Bush v. Mondelez 

Int’l, Inc., No. 16-cv-02460-RS, 2016 WL 5886886, at *2, (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2016) (“After 

reciting the six circumstances in which slack-fill is functional and not misleading, under 

21 C.F.R. § 100.100(a)(1)-(6), Bush alleges tersely that ‘none of these circumstances apply 

here.’ His allegations are insufficient to support a claim of unlawful packaging.”) (citation 

omitted). 

Case 3:18-cv-01328-WQH-BGS Document 22 Filed 11/28/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of

 12
12

18cv1328-WQH-BGS

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

Buso fails to adequately allege nonfunctional slack fill in violation of the CFPLA 

under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 12606.2. The allegations of nonfunctional slack fill are 

inadequate to support Buso’s CLRA claim.

V. CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 12) is GRANTED.

Any motions to file an amended complaint must be filed within thirty (30) days of the date 

of this order in accordance with Local Rule 7.1. 

Dated: November 28, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-01328-WQH-BGS Document 22 Filed 11/28/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 12 of

 12