Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-04651/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-04651-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RENEE YOUNG,

Plaintiff,

v.

TRANSNATIONAL FOODS, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-04651-EMC 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF 

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

Docket No. 24

Plaintiff Renee Young purchased Pampa EVOO, a product of Defendant Transnational 

Foods. Docket No. 22 (“FAC”) ¶ 9–10. Defendant sells and labels this product as “Extra Virgin 

Olive Oil.” Id. ¶ 14. However, Plaintiff argues that Pampa EVOO is not actually extra virgin 

olive oil, and she would not have purchased the product but for the misleading labeling. “Plaintiff 

and class members will not purchase the Pampa EVOO product in the future, although they would 

like to do so, unless and until Defendant takes corrective action. Id. ¶ 18. She brings a class 

action for: (1) violation of California Civil Code section 1750, et seq. California Consumer Legal 

Remedies Act (“CLRA”); (2) violation of California Business and Professional Code sections 

14500, et seq. California’s False Advertising Law; (3) California Business and Professional Code 

sections 17200, et seq. Unlawful, Fraudulent and Unfair Business Practices. All of Plaintiff’s 

claims arise from Defendants labeling Pampa EVOO as extra virgin olive oil even though it is her 

contention that it is not actually extra virgin olive oil. 

Defendants seek dismissal arguing the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because 

Plaintiff has not met the amount in controversy requirement for Class Action Fairness Act 

(“CAFA”), Plaintiff lacks standing to seek injunctive relief, and she failed to state a claim for 

purposes of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 9(b). Docket No. 24 (“Mot.”). On January 17, 

Case 3:18-cv-04651-EMC Document 42 Filed 02/19/19 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

2019, the Court heard arguments from both parties on Defendant’s motion. During the hearing, a 

question was raised as to the amount of Defendant’s sales in California of Pampa EVOO. The 

Court allowed Plaintiff jurisdiction discovery with respect to Defendant’s sales in California. 

Defendant filed a supplemental declaration from Juan Iribarne the Chief Financial Officer of 

Transnational Foods. Docket No. 40 (“Iribarne Decl.”). The declaration states that from January 

1, 2014 to July 2018 “Transnational’s sales of Pampa EVOO to its customers in the state of 

California totaled eighty-seven thousand two hundred dollars ($87,283).” Iribarne Decl. ¶ 4. 

The Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff has not met the five million-dollar CAFA 

amount in controversy requirement for subject matter jurisdiction. 

As stated in the Court’s minute order on January 17, 2019, the Court finds that Plaintiff 

does have standing to seek injunctive relief under Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 889 F.3d 

956, 967 (9th Cir. 2018). Plaintiff has stated that she will not purchase the product but would like 

to if corrective action was taken. FAC ¶ 18. For this reason, Plaintiff have standing to seek 

injunctive relief, and the Court considers this in the calculation of the amount in controversy. 

However, Defendant’s sales in California amount to only $87,283 covering a period of 

over three and a half years. The Court does not find support for Plaintiff potentially receiving 

punitive damages greater than a single digit multiplier. Further, it is extremely unlikely the Court 

would award Plaintiff attorneys’ fees exceeding the 25 percent benchmark.1 Finally, Plaintiff has 

not shown that the value of the injunctive relief would cover the substantial difference to achieve 

an amount of in controversy exceeding five million-dollars as required by CAFA. 

 

1 The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 3 (an order 

granting attorneys’ fees in Kissel v. Code 42 Software, Inc., No. SACV 15-1936-JLS (KES) (C.D. 

Cal. Feb. 20, 2018)); Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4 (an order granting attorneys’ fees in Reed v. 1-800 

Contacts, Inc., No. 12-cv-02359-JMBGS, 2014 WL 29011, at *7, *9, *10 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 

2014)). Plaintiff’s request to judicially notice Exhibit 5 (the declaration of Professor Geoffrey P. 

Miller) shall be denied except as to the fact that it is part of the public record. See Steward v. 

West, No. CV 13-02449 BRO (JCx), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186012, at *14 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 

2014) (“Assuming Plaintiffs are seeking to introduce the contents of these declarations rather than 

the existence of them as a public record—which would certainly be irrelevant—the Court must 

have an independent basis for doing so.”). Plaintiff’s remaining requests for judicial notice are 

denied as they relate to the moot Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim. Similarly, the 

Court DENIES Defendant’s request for judicial notice as moot, because the requested documents 

relate to the moot Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim. 

Case 3:18-cv-04651-EMC Document 42 Filed 02/19/19 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

For the reasons stated herein, on the record, and in the January 17, 2019 minute order, the 

Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court 

finds that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted is moot. 

This order disposes of Docket No. 24. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 19, 2019

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-04651-EMC Document 42 Filed 02/19/19 Page 3 of 3