Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-md-02555/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-md-02555-19/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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

M

LI

T

by 

Bo

(co

the

Co

A.

En

Sow

(“M

 

1

 

100

den

N RE COCA

MARKETING

ITIGATION

his docume

Now be

defendants T

ttling Comp

ollectively “C

e record in th

la’s motion.

Factua

This is 

gurasoff”), P

wizrol”), Mi

Ms. Dube”), 

 

Coca-C

0-1.) Becau

nies it as mo

A-COLA PRO

G AND SAL

N (II) 

nt relates to

efore the Cou

The Coca-C

pany of Los A

Coca-Cola”)

his case, and 

1

al Backgrou

a multi-distr

Paul Merritt 

ichelle Marin

and Thomas

 

Cola submitte

use the Court

oot. 

N

UNITED

NORTHER

ODUCTS 

LES PRACT

o all actions

urt for consi

ola Compan

Angeles, and

). The Court

it HEREBY

nd. 

rict litigation

(“Mr. Merri

no (“Ms. Ma

s Woods (“M

 

ed a request 

t did not rely

1

NOT FOR C

D STATES D

RN DISTRIC

TICES 

s

ideration is t

ny, Coca-Col

d Coca-Cola

t has conside

Y GRANTS,

BACKGR

n in which P

itt”), Joshua 

arino”), Yoc

Mr. Woods”)

for judicial 

y on any of th

CITATION

DISTRICT C

CT OF CALI

Case No. 1

ORDER G

DENYING

MOTION 

JUDGMEN

Re: Docket

the motion fo

la Refreshm

a Bottling Co

ered the part

 IN PART, A

ROUND 

Plaintiffs, Ge

Ogden (“M

cheved Lazar

) (collectivel

notice in sup

he documen

COURT 

IFORNIA 

14-md-0255

GRANTING

G, IN PART

FOR PART

NT 

t No. 100 

for partial sum

ments USA, In

ompany of S

ties’ papers, 

AND DENIE

eorge Engura

Mr. Ogden”), 

roff (“Ms. L

ly “Plaintiffs

pport of its m

nts attached t

5-JSW 

G, IN PART

T, DEFEND

TIAL SUM

mmary judg

nc., BCI Co

Sonora, Calif

relevant leg

ES, IN PAR

asoff (“Mr. 

Ronald Sow

Lazaroff”), R

s”), assert a 

motion. (Do

to that reque

T, AND 

DANTS’ 

MARY 

gment filed 

ca-Cola 

fornia 

gal authority,

RT, Cocawizrol (“Mr. 

Rachel Dube 

variety of 

ocket No. 

est, the Court

,

t

Case 4:14-md-02555-JSW Document 116 Filed 05/19/16 Page 1 of 18
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 Californi

a

claims against Coca-Cola, each of which are based on the allegation that Coca-Cola has 

represented, affirmatively and by material omissions, that Coke is “and always has been, free of 

artificial flavors and chemical preservatives, when in reality, it contains” phosphoric acid. 

(Docket No. 103, Opp. Br. at 24:1-2; see also Docket No. 79, Consolidated Complaint (“Consol. 

Compl.”), ¶ 1 (Coca-Cola deceived consumers “into thinking that [Coke]2 was natural and healthy 

when in fact it contained artificial flavoring and chemical preservatives.”).3 Plaintiffs allege that 

phosphoric acid is an artificial flavoring and a chemical preservative and is used as such in Coke 

products. (See, e.g., Consol. Compl. ¶¶ 10, 15, 20-25, 33, 62-107; Docket No. 26, Amended Class 

Action Complaint (“Marino AC”) ¶¶ 10, 15, 20-25, 36, 57-108; Sowizrol v. CocaCola Company, 

14-CV-3774, Docket No. 53, First Amended Complaint (“Sowizrol FAC”) ¶¶ 10, 15, 20-25, 33, 

51-99; Lazaroff v. CocaCola Company, 14-cv-3886-JSW, Docket No. 27, Amended Complaint 

(“Lazaroff AC”) ¶¶ 10, 15, 20-25, 33, 55-103.) 

Plaintiffs challenge three aspects of Coca-Cola’s labels. First, Plaintiffs allege that 

although phosphoric acid is included on the ingredients list, Coca-Cola failed to disclose the fact 

that it is, and is used as, an artificial flavoring and chemical preservative. (See, e.g., Consol. 

Compl. ¶¶ 62-107, 111-113; Marino AC ¶¶ 56-108, 114-116; Sowizrol FAC ¶¶ 51-99, 103-105; 

Lazaroff AC ¶¶ 54-103, 107-109.)4 

Plaintiffs also allege that the phrase “no artificial flavors. no preservatives added. since 

1886.,” which appears on certain Coke products, is an affirmative misrepresentation, because 

Coke contains phosphoric acid, which Coca-Cola uses as an artificial flavoring and a chemical 

preservative. 5 (See, e.g., Consol. Compl. ¶¶ 14-15, 25; Sowizrol FAC ¶¶ 14-15, 48-49; Marino 

AC ¶¶ 14-15, 25, 54-56; Lazaroff AC ¶¶ 14-15, 52-54.) 

Finally, Plaintiffs allege that the phrase “original formula,” is false, because “the 

 

2

 The Court refers to Defendants as “Coca-Cola” and refers to the product as “Coke.” 

3

 Unless otherwise noted, all docket references are to the docket in 14-md-2555. 

4

 The Court shall refer to this as the “ingredients list claim.” 

5

 The Court shall refer to this as the “Pemberton claim.” 

Case 4:14-md-02555-JSW Document 116 Filed 05/19/16 Page 2 of 18
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

com

add

¶ 1

B.

No

Co

issu

ord

dir

reli

A.

fac

jud

dis

Civ

evi

fav

por

of m

“ge

mo

if i

doe

mposition of

dition of arti

6, 55, 135; S

The Co

Proced

On Jun

o. 54, Joint C

la proposed 

ue of relianc

dered that the

ected that th

iance” would

Legal S

A princ

ctually unsup

dgment, or p

spute as to an

v. P. 56(a). “

idence or ma

vorable to the

The par

rtions of the 

material fact

enuine” only

oving party. 

t may affect

es not have t

f Coca-Cola 

ificial ingred

Sowizrol FA

ourt shall add

dural Histor

e 12, 2015, t

Case Manage

a trifurcated

ce. (Joint Stm

e first phase 

he “[l]ast day

d be Octobe

Standards A

cipal purpose

pported claim

artial summa

ny material f

“In consider

ake credibilit

e non-movin

rty moving f

pleadings, d

t. Celotex, 4

y if there is s

Anderson v

t the outcome

the ultimate 

has repeated

dients like ph

AC ¶ 16, 49, 

dress additio

ry Regardin

the parties fi

ement Confe

d discovery p

mt. at 10:21

of discovery

y to file moti

r 2, 2015. (D

Applicable t

e of the summ

ms. Celotex 

ary judgmen

fact and the m

ring a motion

ty determina

ng party.” F

for summary

discovery, an

477 U.S. at 3

sufficient evi

. Liberty Lob

e of the case

burden of pe

3

dly changed 

hosphoric ac

123; Lazaro

onal facts as n

ng this Motio

iled a joint c

erence Statem

plan, with th

-11:8.) The 

y would clos

ion for summ

Docket No. 

 ANAL

to Motions f

mary judgm

Corp. v. Ca

nt, is proper 

movant is en

n for summa

ations, and is

Freeman v. A

y judgment b

nd affidavits

323; see also

idence for a 

bby, Inc., 47

e. Id. at 248

ersuasion at 

over time,” 

cid.” (Conso

off AC ¶ 16, 

necessary in

on. 

case managem

ment (“Joint 

he initial pha

Court adopt

se on Septem

mary judgme

69, Minute O

LYSIS 

for Summar

ment procedu

attrett, 477 U

“if the mova

ntitled to jud

ary judgmen

s required to

Arpaio, 125 F

bears the init

s that demon

o Fed. R. Civ

reasonable f

77 U.S. 242, 

. If the party

trial, that pa

and the cha

ol. Compl. ¶ 

53, 127.) 

n its analysis

ment confer

Stmt.”).) In

ase being lim

ted Coca-Co

mber 18, 201

ent regarding

Order.) 

ry Judgmen

ure is to ident

U.S. 317, 323

ant shows th

dgment as a m

nt, the court m

o draw all inf

F.3d 732, 73

tial burden o

nstrate the ab

v. P. 56(c). A

fact finder to

248-49 (198

y moving fo

arty must pro

anges include

16; see also

s. 

rence stateme

n that statem

mited to disco

ola’s proposa

15. The Cou

g named Pla

nt. 

tify and disp

3-24 (1986).

hat there is no

matter of law

may not wei

ferences in a

35 (9th Cir. 1

of identifying

bsence of a g

An issue of f

o find for the

86). A fact i

or summary j

oduce eviden

e “the 

o Marino AC

ent. (Docke

ment, Cocaovery on the

al and 

urt further 

aintiffs’ 

pose of 

 Summary 

o genuine 

w.” Fed. R. 

gh the 

a light most 

1997). 

g those 

genuine issue

fact is 

e nonis “material”

judgment 

nce which 

C

et 

e

e

”

Case 4:14-md-02555-JSW Document 116 Filed 05/19/16 Page 3 of 18
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

eith

the

bur

(9t

rea

F.3

est

pre

rea

237

840

pre

Ce

B.

res

cla

cau

ma

act

cas

cle

Bey

Ne

reli

Art

her negates a

e non-moving

rden of persu

h Cir. 2000)

Once th

asonable part

3d 1275, 127

ablish a genu

ecluding sum

ason to deny 

7 F.3d 1026,

0 F.2d 1409,

ecluding sum

lotex, 477 U

The Sc

As set f

solve an early

aims, Coca-C

usation. Plai

anagement or

tual reliance 

se, the only w

ear that this a

yond, Inc., N

ew Jersey cou

iance require

Coca-C

ticle III or st

an essential 

g party does

uasion at tria

). 

he moving p

ticularity the

79 (9th Cir. 1

uine issue of

mmary judgm

a motion fo

, 1029 (9th C

, 1418 (9th C

mmary judgm

U.S. at 323. 

ope of this O

forth above, 

y motion for

Cola seeks su

intiffs argue 

rder and that

is not an ele

way to prove

argument ho

No. 06-cv-19

urts have dis

ed in fraud c

Cola could ha

tatutory, whi

element of t

s not have en

al. Nissan F

arty meets it

e evidence th

1996); see al

f material fa

ment because

r summary j

Cir. 2001) (q

Cir. 1988)). 

ment, the mo

Order.

the Court ad

r summary ju

ummary judg

that Coca-C

t resolution 

ement of som

e injury on th

lds true for e

908 (SRC), 2

stinguished ...

cases.”). 

ave asked th

ich would ha

4

he non-mov

nough eviden

Fire & Marin

ts initial burd

hat precludes

lso Fed. R. C

act must take

e a court is “

udgment.’” 

quoting Fors

If the non-m

oving party is

dopted Coca

udgment on

gment on the

Cola has exce

of those issu

me of the cla

he claims at 

each of the c

2007 WL 12

... ‘causal co

e Court for a

ave encompa

ving party’s c

nce of an ess

ne Ins. Co. v

den, the non

s summary j

Civ. 56(e). I

e care adequa

“‘not require

Carmen v. 

sberg v. Paci

moving party

s entitled to 

a-Cola’s prop

Plaintiffs’ r

e basis that P

eeded the sc

ues is premat

aims, but it a

issue is to s

claims at issu

37825, at *4

onnection’ fr

an early sum

assed issues 

claims or tha

sential eleme

v. Fritz Cos.,

n-moving par

judgment.” K

In addition, t

ately to poin

ed to comb th

San Francis

ific Northwe

y fails to poi

judgment as

posal to trifu

eliance. As 

Plaintiffs can

cope of the C

ture. Coca-C

argues that, g

show detrime

ue. See, e.g.

4 n.1 (D.N.J.

from [the] el

mmary judgm

of causation

at party mus

ent to carry i

 210 F.3d 10

rty must “id

Keenan v. A

the party see

nt a court to t

he record to 

sco Unified S

est Bell Telep

int to eviden

s a matter of

urcate discov

to at least so

nnot establis

Court’s case 

Cola conced

given the nat

ental relianc

., Solo v. Bed

. April 26, 2

ement of tra

ment on stand

n and injury.

t show that 

its ultimate 

099, 1102 

entify with 

Allan, 91 

eking to 

the evidence

find some 

School Dist.

phone Co., 

ce 

f law. 

very and to 

ome of the 

sh injury or 

des that 

ture of this 

e. It is not 

d Bath & 

007) (“The 

aditional 

ding, either 

. It also 

e

,

Case 4:14-md-02555-JSW Document 116 Filed 05/19/16 Page 4 of 18
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

cou

giv

wh

que

Co

dat

C.

Mr

and

Law

Co

cla

mis

re 

Ca

4th

reli

on 

107

 

6

 

lim

reg

7

 

aba

opp

issu

mis

aba

cla

uld have sou

ven claim. It

hether Plainti

estion is yes

ca-Cola’s m

te.6

The Ca

Coca-C

r. Ogden’s cl

d Profession

w, Business 

nsumer Leg

aims for negl

Each of

srepresentati

Tobacco II C

l. 4th 370, 4

h 1350, 1366

iance under 

alleged misr

75, 1088 (N.

 

The Co

mited strictly 

garding relian

Coca-C

andoned, bec

position brie

ue of whethe

srepresentati

andoned. Ho

aim going for

ught summar

t did not. Ac

iffs are requi

, the Court w

motion. Coca

alifornia Pla

Cola moves f

laims for all

ns Code secti

and Profess

al Remedies

ligent misrep

f these claim

ion. See Kw

Cases, 46 Ca

13 (1992) (n

6-67 (2010) (

the unlawfu

representatio

.D. Cal. 201

 

ourt expresse

to whether P

nce. 

Cola argues t

cause the Ca

ef. In opposi

er they relied

ion claims a

owever, if an

rward, that P

ry adjudicati

ccordingly, t

ired to prove

will evaluate

a-Cola may r

aintiffs’ Cla

for partial su

eged violatio

ions 17200, e

sions Code se

s Act, Civil C

presentation.

ms for relief r

wikset Corp. 

al. 4th 298, 3

negligent mi

(CLRA). In

ul and unfair 

on. See, e.g.

4); Odgen v.

 

es no opinion

Plaintiffs ha

hat the Cour

alifornia Plai

ing the moti

d on the stat

re based on 

ny Plaintiff d

Plaintiff shou

5

on of the iss

the Court sh

e actual relia

e whether Pla

renew its arg

aims. 

ummary judg

ons of: (1) C

et seq. (the “

ections 1750

Code section

.

7

 (Id. ¶¶ 16

requires a sh

v. Superior 

328 (2009))

srepresentat

addition, co

prongs wher

., Figy v. Fri

. Bumble Be

n in any part

ave met their

rt should trea

intiffs failed

on on the UC

ements or om

the same fac

does not inte

uld file a not

sues of causa

hall limit its e

ance on a giv

aintiffs have

guments reg

gment on Mr

California’s U

“UCL Claim

00, et seq. (th

ns 1750, et s

60-236.) 

howing of ac

Court, 51 C

(FAL and U

tion); Durell

ourts have he

re, as here, t

ito-Lay Nort

ee Foods, LL

ty’s favor on

r burden to o

at the neglig

d to specifica

CL claims, t

missions at i

cts, the Cour

end to pursu

tice of dismi

ation or injur

evaluation o

ven claim. I

e met their bu

arding causa

r. Engurasof

Unfair Comp

ms”); Californ

he “FAL Cla

seq. (the “CL

ctual reliance

al. 4th 310, 

UCL); Bily v.

l v. Sharp He

eld that a pla

the gravamen

th America, I

LC, No. 12-c

n those issue

overcome Co

gent misrepre

ally address t

the Californi

issue. Becau

rt declines to

ue a negligen

issal of the c

ry or on the 

of Coca-Cola

If the answer

urden to ove

ation and inj

ff’s, Mr. Mer

petition Law

nia’s False A

aims”); (3) C

LRA Claim”

e on the alleg

326-27 (201

. Arthur You

ealthcare, 18

aintiff must e

n of the claim

Inc., 67 F. S

cv-01828-LH

s. The Cour

oca-Cola’s m

esentation cl

those claims

ia Plaintiffs 

use the negli

o treat them 

nt misreprese

claim. 

merits of a 

a’s motion to

r to that 

ercome 

ury at a later

rritt’s, and 

w, Business 

Advertising 

California’s 

), and their 

ged 

11) (citing In

ung & Co., 3

83 Cal. App

establish 

m is based 

Supp. 3d 

HK, 2014 

rt’s ruling is 

motion 

laims as 

s in their 

address the 

igent 

as 

entation 

o

r

n

.

Case 4:14-md-02555-JSW Document 116 Filed 05/19/16 Page 5 of 18
6 

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 Californi

a

WL 27527, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2014) (citing, inter alia, Kwikset, 51 Cal. 4th at 326 & n.9 and 

Durell, 183 Cal. App. 4th at 1355). 

In order to show actual reliance, whether based on an affirmative misrepresentation or a 

material omission, the California Plaintiffs must demonstrate that the misrepresentation or 

omission was an “immediate cause of the injury-causing conduct.” In re Tobacco II, 46 Cal. 4th 

at 328; accord Daniel v. Ford Motor Co., 806 F.3d 1217, 1225 (9th Cir. 2015). The California 

Plaintiffs need not prove the misrepresentation or omission was the “only”, “sole,” “predominant,” 

or “decisive” cause of the injury-causing conduct. Rather, they may show that the 

misrepresentation or omission was a substantial factor in their decision making process. Daniel, 

806 F.3d at 1225; In re Tobacco II, 46 Cal. 4th at 328. If an omission is material, the fact that one 

would have behaved differently “can be presumed, or at least inferred.” Daniel, 806 F.3d at 1225. 

However, a plaintiff cannot use that presumption, “if the evidence establishes an actual lack of 

reliance.” Lanovaz v. Twinings North America, Inc., No. 12-cv-02646-RMW, 2014 WL 46822, at 

*3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2014) (citing, inter alia, In re Tobacco II, 46 Cal. 4th at 327); cf. In re 

iPhone Application Litig., 6 F. Supp. 3d 1004, 1020 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (presumption cannot be 

applied to misrepresentations plaintiffs never saw). 

The California Plaintiffs argue that they need not prove reliance on a specific 

misrepresentation and contend that the Court must evaluate their reliance based on the Coke label 

as a whole. In support, they rely heavily on In re Tobacco II, in which the court held that a 

plaintiff “is not required to necessarily plead and prove individualized reliance on specific 

misrepresentations or false statements where ... those misrepresentations and false statements 

were part of an extensive and long-term advertising campaign.” 46 Cal. 4th at 328. The 

California Plaintiffs have not relied on such a theory in this case, and the Court does not find their 

argument persuasive. 

Plaintiffs also rely on Miller v. Ghiradelli Chocolate Co., to support the argument that the 

Court must evaluate the Coke label as a whole. 912 F. Supp. 2d 861, 874 (N.D. Cal. 2012). 

However, in the Miller case, the court was not called upon to address whether the plaintiffs relied 

on particular portions of the label. Id. Rather, the court addressed whether the label would 

Case 4:14-md-02555-JSW Document 116 Filed 05/19/16 Page 6 of 18
7 

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 Californi

a

deceive a reasonable consumer. That issue is not yet before this Court.

With respect to the ingredients list claim, the California Plaintiffs argue that because the 

omission is material, it should not impact the Court’s analysis if they did not read the ingredients 

list before purchasing Coke. The Court disagrees. In the Daniel case, the Ninth Circuit stated that 

there are two “sub-elements” a plaintiff must prove to show that an omission was a substantial 

factor in a purchasing decision: awareness and a change in behavior. Daniel, 806 F.3d at 1225-26. 

The latter sub-element may be presumed if the omitted information is material.8 Id. at 1225. 

However, a plaintiff must still be able to show he or she would have been aware of the information 

if it had been disclosed. Id. at 1226. 

In Daniel, the court found that the plaintiffs had created a genuine issue of material fact 

about whether they would have been aware of the omitted information. There, the plaintiffs 

presented evidence that the defendant had disclosed that information to its dealerships, and 

plaintiffs testified that they had “interacted with and received information from sales 

representatives” at the dealerships before making their purchases. Id. “Since Plaintiffs have 

sufficient evidence to establish a plausible method of disclosure and to establish that they would 

have been aware of information disclosed using that method, there is a genuine issue of material 

fact as to whether they in fact relied on” defendant’s omissions. Id. at 1227 (emphasis added). 

Here, including the alleged omissions on the ingredients list would have been a plausible method 

to disclose that information. Therefore, it is relevant to the Court’s analysis whether a Plaintiff 

would have been “aware of the disclosure using that method.” Id.

Accordingly, the Court evaluates whether the California Plaintiffs relied on each alleged 

misrepresentation or omission as set forth in the Consolidated Complaint. See, e.g., Khasin v. 

Hershey Company, No. 12-cv-01862-EJD, 2014 WL 17799805, at *4 (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2014) 

(granting partial summary judgment where plaintiff’s testimony revealed “that he did not, in fact, 

rely on most of [the] representations outlined in the pleadings”).

 

8

 Coca-Cola did not seek early summary judgment on the issue of whether the alleged 

omission is material, and the record is not sufficiently developed for the Court to make that 

determination. 

Case 4:14-md-02555-JSW Document 116 Filed 05/19/16 Page 7 of 18
8 

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 Californi

a

1. Mr. Engurasoff’s Claims. 

Mr. Engurasoff testified that he noticed the Pemberton claim on Coke’s label in 

approximately 2012. He testified that he first noticed the statement at his home, after he 

purchased a two-liter bottle of Coke. (Docket No. 104, Declaration of Joshua Glatter (“Glatter 

Decl.”), Ex. C (Deposition of George Engurasoff at 17:9-18, 19:3-7, 27:1-9).)9

 Mr. Engurasoff 

initially testified he has not purchased Coke since May 2012. However, he also testified that 

before he learned that the Pemberton claim was “not true,” he purchased six to twelve more 

containers of Coke. (Id. at 31:-3-7, 37:6-9, 62:20, 63:1-11, 64:18-18.) Specifically, Mr. 

Engurasoff testified that “I did notice that it did have the statement on the bottle in regards to it 

being – having no artificial flavors, no preservatives, so ... that helped me, I guess, justify buying 

the product I liked to drink[.] (Id. at 67:4-11.)10 Taking the facts in the light most favorable to 

Mr. Engurasoff, the Court finds that he has put forth sufficient evidence to show there is a genuine 

issue of disputed fact as to whether the Pemberton claim was a substantial factor in his decision to 

purchase Coke. 

Mr. Engurasoff does not dispute that he did not read the ingredients list before purchasing 

Coke, and he did testify that he had no quarrel with the manner in which phosphoric acid was 

listed in the ingredients list. (Id. at 54:1-4.) With the exception of the question about whether Mr. 

Engurasoff reviewed the ingredients list before purchasing a specific Coke product, Coca-Cola’s 

questions were directed at Mr. Engurasoff’s practices about reading labels in general. Mr. 

Engurasoff testified that he does not currently have a practice of reading labels to determine 

whether a product contains phosphoric acid, but that he does have a practice of reading labels 

when he shops for his kids to look at sugar content. (Id. at 25:1-26:25). He also testified that he 

 

9

 Coca-Cola has attached relevant excerpts from the plaintiffs’ depositions to the Declaration 

of Michelle W. Cohen. (See Docket Nos. 105-5 through 105-13.) Plaintiffs have attached the 

complete transcripts of their depositions to the Glatter Declaration. Unless it is necessary to refer 

to Coca-Cola’s excerpts for purposes of evaluating whether it has met its burden of proof as the 

moving party, all further citations to a Plaintiff’s deposition shall be to the exhibits attached to the 

Glatter Declaration. 

10 Coca-Cola’s objection to this testimony is overruled. 

Case 4:14-md-02555-JSW Document 116 Filed 05/19/16 Page 8 of 18
9 

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 Californi

a

“occasionally” reads labels to determine whether a product contained added preservatives. (Id. at 

57:12-21.) The Court concludes that Mr. Engurasoff has presented sufficient evidence to 

overcome Coca-Cola’s motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the Court DENIES, IN 

PART, Coca-Cola’s motion. 

However, with respect to the phrase “original formula,” Mr. Engurasoff previously 

acknowledged that Coke’s formula has changed many times since 1886 and stated that there were 

no claims based on that phrase. (Engurasoff v. Coca-Cola Company, 13-cv-3990-JSW, Docket 

No. 33, Opposition to Motion to Dismiss at 5, n.9.) Therefore, on August 21, 2014, the Court 

granted, in part Coca-Cola’s motion to dismiss claims premised on that statement. (Engurasoff v. 

Coca-Cola, Docket No. 73, Order at 8:18-22.) To the extent Mr. Engurasoff seeks to proceed on a 

theory that this phrase, standing alone, supports these claims the Court shall not consider that 

argument in light of its prior ruling. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS, IN PART, Coca-Cola’s 

motion.11

2. Mr. Odgen’s Claims. 

Coca-Cola concedes that Mr. Ogden relied on the Pemberton claim, and it only moves for 

partial summary judgment on the ingredients list claim. Mr. Odgen testified that, “[f]or the most 

part,” he reads the ingredients list before purchasing food or beverages. (Glatter Decl., Ex. H 

(Ogden Deposition at 21:15-24.) Mr. Ogden also testified that if he read an ingredients list and 

saw that the product contained phosphoric acid, he “would not get it on principle.” (Id. at 41:3-

42:1, 42:5-14.) Mr. Odgen testified that, apart from the Pemberton claim, he did not have any 

other concerns with Coke’s label. (Id. at 29:4-7.) However, the rest of his testimony supports his 

theory that had he known Coke contained phosphoric acid, he would not have purchased it. The 

Court concludes Mr. Odgen has presented sufficient evidence to overcome Coca-Cola’s motion 

for summary judgment. Daniel, 806 F.3d at 1227. Accordingly, the Court DENIES, IN PART, 

Coca-Cola’s motion. 

 

11 The Court expresses no opinion on whether the phrase “original formula” would render 

either the Pemberton claim or the ingredients list claim deceptive or misleading and, thus, it shall 

not preclude any Plaintiff from raising this argument as the litigation proceeds. 

Case 4:14-md-02555-JSW Document 116 Filed 05/19/16 Page 9 of 18
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

for

in 2

(Gl

spe

nat

tes

evi

dec

list

res

tes

87:

Co

DE

phr

con

wa

PA

D.

vio

mis

FD

To the e

rth above wit

3.

Mr. Me

2012, and th

latter Decl., 

ecifically wa

tural product

tified that he

idence for a 

cision to pur

With re

t of ingredien

sponse to Co

tified that he

:13-19.) The

la’s motion 

ENIES, IN P

With re

rase until it w

ncludes that 

as a substanti

ART, Coca-C

Mr. W

Coca-C

olations of th

srepresentati

DUTPA: (1) a

extent these 

th respect to

Mr. Merrit

erritt testified

hat the reason

Ex. D (Depo

as induced by

ts or ingredi

e purchased 

reasonable j

rchase Coke.

espect to the 

nts when he 

ca-Cola’s qu

e tries to avo

e Court conc

for summary

ART, Cocaespect to the 

was pointed 

Mr. Merritt 

ial factor in h

Cola’s motion

oods’ Claim

Cola moves f

he Florida De

ion and brea

an unfair pra

claims are b

o Mr. Engura

tt’s Claims.

d that althou

n he purchas

osition of Pa

y the labelin

ents.”), 34:2

the Coke be

ury to find t

. According

ingredients 

purchased C

uestions abo

oid products 

cludes Mr. M

y judgment. 

-Cola’s moti

“original fo

out to him a

has not put 

his decision 

n. 

ms. 

for partial su

eceptive and

ach of expres

actice or a de

10

based on the 

asoff, the Co

ugh he does n

sed it was be

aul Merritt at

ng of the prod

20-35:8, 38:1

ecause it was

that the Pemb

gly, the Cour

list claim, M

Coke. (Id. at

out whether h

that have ph

Merritt has pr

Daniel, 806

ion. 

rmula” claim

at is depositi

forth suffici

to purchase

ummary judg

d Unfair Trad

ss warranty.

eceptive act;

0

phrase “orig

ourt GRANT

not normally

ecause it had

at 33:12-22; s

duct that imp

19-25, 39:9-

s on sale, the

mberton claim

rt DENIES, I

Mr. Merritt te

t 40:10-19.) 

he reads labe

hosphoric ac

resented suf

6 F.3d at 122

m, Mr. Merr

ion. (Merritt

ent facts to s

e Coke. Acc

gment on Mr

de Practices 

 There are th

; (2) causatio

ginal formul

TS, IN PART

y drink Coke

d the Pember

see also id. a

mplied and sp

13.) Althou

e Court conc

m was a subs

IN PART, C

estified that 

 However, h

els, that he tr

cid on the lab

fficient evide

27. Accordin

ritt testified t

t Depo. at 37

show the phr

ordingly, the

r. Woods’ cl

 Act (“FDUT

three elemen

on; and (3) a

la,” for the re

T, Coca-Cola

e, he purchas

rton claim on

at 19:11-13 

pecifically sta

ugh Mr. Merr

cludes there i

stantial facto

Coca-Cola’s m

he did not lo

he also testif

ries to read t

bel. (Id. at 5

ence to overc

ngly, the Co

that he never

7:19-38:15.)

rase “origina

e Court GRA

laims for alle

TPA”), negl

nts of a claim

actual damag

easons set 

a’s motion.

sed a Coke 

n the label. 

(“I 

ated all 

ritt also 

is sufficient 

or in his 

motion. 

ook at the 

fied, in 

them and 

50:10-12, 

come Cocaourt 

r noticed tha

) The Court 

al formula” 

ANTS, IN 

eged 

ligent 

m under the 

ges. See 

at 

Case 4:14-md-02555-JSW Document 116 Filed 05/19/16 Page 10 of 18
11 

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 Californi

a

Hennegan Company v. Arriola, 885 F. Supp. 2d 1354, 1360 (S.D. Fla. 2012) (citing City First 

Mortg. Corp. v. Barton, 988 So. 2d 82, 86 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)). With respect to the first 

element, “deception occurs if there is a representation, omission, or practice that is likely to 

mislead the consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances, to the consumer’s detriment,” and it 

“requires a showing of probable, not possible, deception that is likely to cause injury to a 

reasonable relying consumer.” Zlotnick v. Premier Sales Group, Inc., 480 F.3d 1281, 1284 (11th 

Cir. 2007) (internal quotations and citations omitted). “[A] demonstration of reliance by an 

individual consumer is not necessary in the context of” the FDUTPA. Turner Greenberg Assoc’s 

v. Pathman, 885 So. 2d 1004, 1009 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004); see also Rosen v. J.M. Auto, 270 

F.R.D. 675, 687-88 (S.D. Fla. 2009). Accordingly, the Court DENIES, IN PART, Coca-Cola’s 

motion. 

In contrast to the FDUTPA claim, Mr. Woods must show he actually relied on the alleged 

misrepresentations, or omissions, to prevail on his claims for negligent misrepresentation and 

breach of express warranty. See Romo v. Amedex Ins. Co., 920 So. 2d 643, 650-51 (Fla. Dist. Ct. 

App. 2006) (negligent misrepresentation); Thursby v. Reynolds Metals Co., 466 So. 2d 245, 250 

(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984) (breach of express warranty). Mr. Woods testified that he was exposed 

to the Pemberton claim and testified that, after he noticed it, his purchasing habits did not change 

until he spoke with his attorneys. (Glatter Decl., Ex. E (Deposition of Thomas C. Woods at 15:12-

16:15, 42:21-43:1, 45:15-46:3.) At that point, Mr. Woods stopped purchasing Coke for his 

personal consumption. (Id. at 46:4-9.) Mr. Woods also made clear that “during the summer 2013, 

I considered [Coke] to be healthier. Based on that labeling, I considered it to be healthier than the 

alternatives.” (Id. at 49:7-12, 71:11-22; see id. at 65:4-19 (“I had the belief that I was purchasing 

one thing and I got another”), 71:15-73:2.) The Court concludes that, taking the facts in the light 

most favorable to Mr. Woods, a reasonable juror could conclude that he relied on the Pemberton 

claim when making a decision to purchase Coke. Accordingly, the Court DENIES, IN PART, 

Coca-Cola’s motion. 

Mr. Woods testified that he did not have any concerns with the ingredients list itself or 

how its contents are displayed. (Id. at 41:7-42:14.) Mr. Woods also testified that, when he shops, 

Case 4:14-md-02555-JSW Document 116 Filed 05/19/16 Page 11 of 18
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

he 

che

71:

sta

und

dec

bur

DE

con

his

for

wa

E.

vio

et s

pla

tha

inv

dec

Sup

Suz

Inc

DE

mis

199

“occasionall

emicals and 

:16-18.) Ho

te on the lab

derstanding 

ceptive beca

rden overcom

ENIES, IN P

With re

ncerns about

s burden to sh

rmula,” for p

arranty. Acc

Mr. So

Coca-C

olations of th

seq. (the “IF

aintiff must p

at the plaintif

volving trade

ception.” De

preme Court

zuki Motor C

c. v. U.S. Off

ENIES, IN P

In contr

srepresentati

99) (citing R

ly” looks at 

preservative

wever, Mr. W

bel that Coke

that it, in fac

ause of a mat

me Coca-Co

ART, Cocaespect to the 

t that phrase

how a dispu

purposes of h

ordingly, the

owrizol’s Cla

Cola moves f

he Illinois Co

CA Claim”)

prove “(1) a 

ff rely on the

e or commer

e Bouse v. B

t has held th

Co., Ltd., 174

fice Equipme

ART, Cocarast to the IF

ion. See Qu

Rosenstein v.

the food lab

es, including

Woods was 

e did not con

ct, did. Plain

terial omissi

ola’s motion 

-Cola’s moti

phrase “orig

. (Id. at 42:1

uted issue of 

his claims fo

e Court GRA

aims. 

for partial su

onsumer Fra

) and neglige

deceptive ac

e deception, 

rce, and (4) a

Bayer, 235 Ill

at “reliance 

4 Ill. 2d 482

ent, Inc., 250

-Cola’s moti

FCA claim, a

uinn v. McGr

 Standard &

12

bels but conti

g foods with 

clear in his d

ntain artificia

ntiffs are pro

on. The Cou

on the ingre

ion. 

ginal formul

10-14.) The

fact as to wh

or negligent m

ANTS, IN PA

ummary judg

aud and Dece

ent misrepre

ct or practice

(3) the occu

actual damag

l. 2d 544, 92

is not an ele

2, 675 N.E.2d

0 F.3d 570, 5

ion. 

actual relianc

raw-Hill Com

& Poors Corp

2

inues to eat 

phosphoric 

deposition th

al flavors an

oceeding on 

urt conclude

edients list cl

la,” Mr. Woo

e Court conc

hether he rel

misrepresent

ART, Cocagment on Mr

eptive Busin

esentation. T

e by the defe

urrence of th

ge to the plai

22 N.E.2d 30

ement of stat

d 584, 593 (

576 (7th Cir

ce is an elem

mpanies, IN

p., 264 Ill. A

foods that co

acid. (Id. at

hat he believ

nd preservativ

a theory tha

es that Mr. W

laim. Accor

ods testified 

ludes that M

lied on the p

tation and br

-Cola’s moti

r. Sowizrol’s

ness Practice

To prevail on

endant, (2) th

he deception 

intiff that is 

09, 313 (200

tutory consu

1996); accor

r. 2001). Ac

ment of a cla

NC., 168 F.3d

App. 3d 818,

ontain artific

t 60:7-24, 61

ved it was de

ves, when it

at the ingredi

Woods has m

rdingly, the C

that he did n

Mr. Woods ha

phrase “origi

reach of exp

ion. 

s claims for 

es Act, 815 I

n an IFCA C

he defendan

in a course o

(5) a result o

09). The Illin

umer fraud.”

rd Cozzi Iro

cordingly, th

aim for negli

d 331, 335 (7

 636 N.E.2d

cial flavors, 

1:12-16, 

eceptive to 

t was his 

ients list is 

met his 

Court 

not have any

as not met 

nal 

press 

alleged 

LCS 505/1, 

Claim, a 

nt’s intent 

of conduct 

of the 

nois 

Connick v. 

on & Metal, 

he Court 

igent 

7th Cir. 

d 665, 667 

y

Case 4:14-md-02555-JSW Document 116 Filed 05/19/16 Page 12 of 18
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

(19

his

14:

“pr

Mr

pre

or 

Sow

he 

mo

hon

cla

22.

out

In l

mis

che

the

the

con

has

“or

Co

F.

vio

993)). Mr. S

s brother at s

:24-15:11, 1

robably” bou

r. Sowizrol t

eservatives” 

after he mad

wizrol has p

relied on the

otion. 

As to th

nest with you

aim, he did n

.) However,

t as being a p

light of the f

sleading, bec

emical prese

ere are disput

e Court DEN

With re

ncerns about

s not met his

riginal formu

urt GRANT

Ms. Ma

Coca-C

olations of M

Sowizrol test

ome point in

6:22-17:1, 2

ught some C

estified that 

on Coke’s la

de that last pu

presented suf

e Pemberton

he ingredient

u.” (Id. at 5

not consider a

, Mr. Sowizr

preservative

fact that Plai

cause it omit

ervative, the 

ted facts on 

NIES, IN PAR

espect to the 

t that phrase

s burden to s

ula,” for purp

TS, IN PART

arino’s Clai

Cola moves f

Massachusett

tified that he

n early 2014

22:21-23:23, 

Coke but stop

he did not m

abel. He cou

urchase. (Id

fficient evide

n claim. Acc

ts list claim,

0:23-24.) M

anything els

rol also testif

-free produc

intiffs are pr

tted the fact

Court conclu

the issue of 

RT, Coca-C

phrase “orig

. (Sowizrol 

show a dispu

poses of his 

T, Coca-Cola

ims. 

for partial su

s General La

13

e took a hard

. (Glatter D

74:9-12.) H

pped once he

make any pur

uld not, how

d. at 35:23-3

ence to show

cordingly, th

 Mr. Sowizr

Mr. Sowizrol

e about Cok

fied that he p

ct.” (Id. at 6

oceeding on

that phosph

udes that Mr

reliance wit

ola’s motion

ginal formul

Depo. at 55

uted issue of 

claim for ne

a’s motion. 

ummary judg

aws Chapter

3

d look at Cok

Decl., Ex. G (

He also testif

e hired his at

rchases of C

wever, remem

7:2, 74:9-11

w there are d

he Court DEN

rol testified t

l also testifie

ke’s label to b

purchased C

6:12-17; see

n a theory tha

horic acid wa

r. Sowizrol h

th respect to 

n. 

la,” Mr. Sow

:17-21.) Th

f fact as to wh

egligent mis

gment on Ms

r 93A (the “C

ke’s label aft

(Deposition 

fied that afte

ttorney in th

Coke after he

mber if he sa

1.) The Cour

disputed issu

NIES, IN PA

that “I really

ed that, apart

be inaccurat

Coke, in part,

e also id. at 7

at the ingred

as both an ar

has met his b

the ingredie

wizrol testifie

he Court con

hether he rel

representatio

s. Marino’s c

Chapter 93A

ter a convers

of Ronald S

er the conver

his case. (Id.

e saw a refer

aw the langu

rt concludes

es of fact as 

ART, Coca-C

y don’t read 

t from the Pe

te. (Id. at 23

, because it “

70:13-21, 76

dients list wa

rtificial flavo

burden to sh

ents list. Acc

ed that he ha

cludes that M

lied on the p

on. Accordi

claims for al

A Claim”) an

sation with 

Sowizrol at 

rsation he 

 at 35:2-22.)

rence to “no 

uage before 

s that Mr. 

to whether 

Cola’s 

labels to be 

emberton 

3:1-5, 55:5-

“held itself 

6:-22-77:18.)

as 

or and a 

how that 

cordingly, 

ad no 

Mr. Sowizro

phrase 

ingly, the 

lleged 

nd negligent 

) 

) 

ol 

Case 4:14-md-02555-JSW Document 116 Filed 05/19/16 Page 13 of 18
14 

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 Californi

a

misrepresentation. In order to prove a Section 93A Claim, a plaintiff must establish that he or she 

“1) suffered an economic injury 2) caused by 3) an unfair or deceptive act or practice.” In re 

Celexa and Lexapro Marketing and Sales Practices Litig., MDL No. 09-2067-NMG, 2015 WL 

3751422, at *8 (D. Mass. June 15, 2015) (citing Tyler v. Michael’s Stores, Inc., 464 Mass. 492, 

501-02, 984 N.E.2d 737 (2013)). “Actual reliance” is not an element of a Chapter 93A Claim. In 

re Pharmaceutical Average Wholesale Price Litig., 582 F.3d 156, 185 (1st Cir. 2009) (quoting 

International Fid. Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 387 Mass. 481, 443 N.E.2d 1308, 1314 (1983)); accord In re 

M3 Power Razor System Marketing & Sale Practices Litig., 270 F.R.D. 45, 60 (D. Mass. 2010) 

(noting that the protections afforded by Chapter 93A are “arguably more consumer friendly than” 

California’s UCL). Accordingly, the Court DENIES, IN PART, Coca-Cola’s motion. 

In contrast, in order to prove her claim for negligent misrepresentation, Ms. Marino must 

show she actually and justifiably relied on the alleged misrepresentation. See DeWolfe v. 

Hingham Center Ltd., 465 Mass. 795, 800, 985 N.E.2d 1187 (2013). During her deposition, Ms. 

Marino acknowledged that “Coke isn’t like your optimal thing to drink, but if I was going to have 

something and looking for other items to drink other than my usual seltzer water, this would’ve 

been a product that I chose because of the fact that it said what was listed on the label,” i.e. the 

Pemberton claim. (Glatter Decl., Ex. F, (Deposition of Michelle Marino at 22:1-6; see also id. at 

26:3-9, 46:9-12).) Ms. Marino also testified that she first noticed the Pemberton claim in 2011 or 

2012. (Id. at 53:7-20.) She also testified that she chose to purchase Coke over other products 

based on the Pemberton claim. (Id. at 54:5-22, 55:4-19, 56:17-7, 63:18-23, 134:2-6.) The Court 

concludes that Ms. Marino has met her burden to overcome Coca-Cola’s motion for summary 

judgment as to the Pemberton claim. Accordingly, the Court DENIES, IN PART, Coca-Cola’s 

motion. 

As to the ingredients list, Ms. Marino testified that between 2010 and 2014, the ingredients 

list did not factor into her decision about whether to buy Coke. (Id. at 40:1-21.) However, she 

also testified that “I feel that they should write there’s a chemical on the bottle. It should be 

labeled, instead of having the complete opposite.” (Id. at 46:16-19.) In light of the fact that 

Plaintiffs are proceeding on a theory that the ingredients list was misleading, because it omitted 

Case 4:14-md-02555-JSW Document 116 Filed 05/19/16 Page 14 of 18
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

the

con

reli

Co

sta

Ma

phr

the

G.

vio

the

vio

eng

suf

802

944

reli

at *

941

Ge

not

mo

law

DiB

she

e fact that ph

ncludes that 

iance with re

la’s motion.

With re

tement and i

arino has not

rase “origina

e Court GRA

Ms. La

Coca-C

olations of N

e “Section 35

olation of eit

gaged in (1) 

ffered injury

2 F.3d 289, 3

4, 967 N.E.2

iance. See N

*25 & n.26 (

1-42 (“To th

eneral Busine

t an element 

otion. 

Howev

w. See Fried

Bartolo v. Ab

e began to be

hosphoric aci

Ms. Marino

espect to the

espect to the 

it did not bot

t met her bur

al formula,” 

ANTS, IN PA

azaroff’s Cla

Cola moves f

New York Ge

50 Claim”) a

her Section 

consumer or

y as a result o

300 (2nd Cir

2d 635 (2012

New World S

(S.D.N.Y. D

he extent that

ess Law §§ 3

of the statut

er, reliance i

dman v. Med

bbott Labs., 

ecome more 

id was both 

o has met her

e ingredients

phrase “orig

ther her. (M

rden to show

for purposes

ART, Coca-C

aims. 

for partial su

eneral Busin

and her claim

349 or Secti

riented cond

of the alleged

r. 2015) (quo

2)). A claim

Solutions, Inc

Dec. 15, 2015

t the Appella

349 and 350 

tory claim.”)

is an elemen

dtronic, Inc., 

914 F. Supp

health cons

15

an artificial 

r burden to s

 list. Accord

ginal formul

Marino Depo

w a disputed 

s of her claim

Cola’s motio

ummary judg

ness Law sec

m for beach o

ion 350, a pl

duct that is (2

dly deceptiv

oting Koch v

m under Secti

c. v. NameM

5) (citing Ko

ate Division 

claims, it w

). According

nt of a claim 

42 A.D.2d 

p. 2d 601, 62

cious after h

5

flavor and a

show that the

dingly, the C

la,” Ms. Mar

. at 61:15-62

issue of fact

m for neglig

on. 

gment on Ms

ctions 349 an

of express w

laintiff must 

2) materially

ve act or prac

v. Acker, Me

ion 349 or S

Media, Inc., -

och, 18 N.Y.

n order impos

was error. Ju

gly, the Cou

for breach o

185, 190, 34

25 (S.D.N.Y

having childr

a chemical pr

ere are dispu

Court DENIE

rino testified

2:2.) The Co

t as to wheth

gent misrepre

s. Lazaroff’s

nd 350 (the “

warranty. In 

show that “

y misleading

ctice.’” Orla

erall & Cond

ection 350 d

-- F. Supp. 3

3d at 941-42

sed a relianc

ustifiable reli

urt DENIES,

of express w

45 N.Y.S.2d 

Y. 2012). Ms

ren and chos

reservative, 

uted facts on

ES, IN PAR

d that she had

ourt conclud

her she relied

esentation. A

s claims for a

“Section 349

order to pro

‘a defendant

g and that (3)

ander v. Stap

dit Co., 18 N

does not requ

d --, 2015 W

2 )); Koch, 1

ce requireme

iance by the 

 IN PART, C

warranty unde

637 (1973);

s. Lazaroff te

se Coke, bec

the Court 

n the issue of

RT, Cocad heard the 

des that Ms. 

d on the 

Accordingly

alleged 

9 Claim” and

ove a 

t has 

) plaintiff 

ples, Inc., 

N.Y.3d 940, 

uire proof of

WL8958390, 

8 N.Y.3d at 

ent on 

plaintiff is 

Coca-Cola’s

er New York

; accord 

estified that 

cause she 

f

y, 

d

f

s

k

Case 4:14-md-02555-JSW Document 116 Filed 05/19/16 Page 15 of 18
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

saw

sta

buy

(Gl

24:

Co

sca

inc

I do

not

lab

has

cla

sta

dec

tha

the

Ac

H.

Sec

Jer

for

“(1

def

Eng

w “no artific

tement made

y it for her c

latter Decl., 

:12-23, 29:3

Ms. Laz

ke’s label. (

ans ingredien

cluding phos

on’t know w

t important.”

bel what is an

s met her bur

aim and the i

With re

tement at ab

cision to pur

at Ms. Lazaro

e phrase “ori

ccordingly, th

Ms. Du

Finally,

ction 350 Cl

rsey Statutes

r breach of ex

1) unlawful c

fendant’s un

gineers Loca

ial flavors an

e her feel tha

child. She al

Ex. A (Depo

-19, 48:16-1

zaroff testifi

(Id. at 28:8-1

nts lists on fo

phoric acid)

what everythi

” (Id. at 30:2

nd is not arti

rden to over

ngredients li

espect to the 

bout the same

rchase Coke.

off has met h

ginal formul

he Court DE

ube’s Claim

, Coca-Cola 

laims, her cla

 Annotated s

xpress warra

conduct; (2) 

nlawful condu

al No. 68 We

nd no preser

at Coke was

lso testified t

osition of Yo

19, 49:24-50

ied that prior

11, 29:20-24

ood products

).) As Ms. L

ing means. 

20-23.) She

ificial. (Id. a

rcome Cocaist. Accordi

phrase “orig

e time she n

. (Lazaroff D

her burden to

la,” for purp

ENIES, IN PA

s. 

moves for p

aim for alleg

sections 56:8

anty. In orde

an ascertain

uct and the p

Welfare Fund 

16

rvatives” on 

a healthy pr

that she first

ocheved Laz

:3, 75:14-18

r to 2014, sh

4; see also id

s to look for

Lazaroff testi

So it is like 

also testifie

at 126:2-128

-Cola’s moti

ingly, the Co

ginal formul

oticed the Pe

Depo. at 129

o show a dis

poses of her c

ART, Cocapartial summ

ged violation

8-1, et seq. (

er to prove a

nable loss; an

plaintiff’s as

v. Merck, 19

6

the bottle. A

roduct and m

t noticed the 

zaroff at 13:

8.) 

he only scann

d. at 34:16-3

r, inter alia, 

ified, “I look

you are trus

ed that, in he

8:12.) The C

on for summ

ourt DENIES

la,” Ms. Laza

emberton cla

9:21-130:14,

sputed issue 

claim for bre

-Cola’s moti

mary judgmen

ns of the New

(the “New Je

a New Jersey

nd (3) a caus

scertainable 

92 N.J. 372, 

According to

made her fee

 Pemberton 

15-14:9, 14:

ned the ingre

5:7, 37:20-3

artificial flav

ked through 

ting the labe

er view, the i

Court conclu

mary judgme

S, IN PART

aroff testifie

aim and that

, 132:12-21.

of fact as to

each of expr

ion. 

nt on Ms. D

w Jersey Co

ersey CFA C

y CFA claim

sal relationsh

loss.” Int’l 

389, 929 A.

o Ms. Lazaro

el comfortabl

claim in abo

11-15:6, 15

edients list b

38:8 (stating 

vors and pre

[the ingredie

el. So it’s no

ingredients l

des that Ms.

ent as to the 

T, Coca-Cola

ed that she no

t it influence

) The Court

o whether she

ress warranty

ube’s Sectio

nsumer Frau

Claim”), and

m, a plaintiff

hip between 

Union of Op

.2d 1076 (20

off, that 

le enough to

out 2010. 

:18-16:8, 

but trusted 

that she 

eservatives, 

ents list], bu

ot that it is 

list should 

. Lazaroff 

Pemberton 

a’s motion. 

oticed the 

ed her 

t concludes 

e relied on 

y. 

on 349 and 

ud Act, New

d her claim 

f must show:

the 

perating 

007). Under

o

ut 

w

r

Case 4:14-md-02555-JSW Document 116 Filed 05/19/16 Page 16 of 18
17 

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 Californi

a

the New Jersey CFA, the element of reliance is replaced “with the requirement that plaintiff prove 

ascertainable loss.” Id.; see also Hoffman v. Liquid Health, Inc., No. 14-cv-01838 (SRC), 2014 

WL 2999280, at *8 (D.N.J. July 2, 2014). Because reliance is not an element of a New Jersey 

CFA claim, the Court DENIES, IN PART, Coca-Cola’s motion. As set forth above, Ms. Dube is 

not required to prove actual reliance to establish her claims under Section 349 or Section 350. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES, IN PART, Coca-Cola’s motion. 

 Coca-Cola also argues that Ms. Dube is required to establish reliance to prove her breach 

of express warranty claim under New Jersey law, and it relies on Smith v. Merial Ltd., No. 10-cv439, 2011 WL 2119100, at *7 (D.N.J. May 26, 2011). In Smith, however, the court stated that 

“[t]o establish a breach of an express warranty ... the plaintiff need not prove privity or traditional 

reliance. While some states require such elements, New Jersey’s basis of the bargain requirement 

is much broader. Plaintiffs must only show that the alleged express warranties were of a kind 

which naturally would induce the purchase.” Id. (emphasis added, internal quotations and 

citations omitted); accord Majdipour v. Jaguar Land RoverNorth America, LLC, No. 2:12-cv07849 (WHW), 2013 WL 5574626, at *11 (D.N.J. Oct. 9, 2013) (citing Elias v. Ungar’s Food 

Prods., Inc., 252 F.R.D. 233, 239 (D.N.J. 2008)). Accordingly, the Court DENIES, IN PART, 

Coca-Cola’s motion. 

CONCLUSION 

 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS, IN PART, AND DENIES, IN PART, 

Coca-Cola’s motion. Pursuant to the Court’s minute order following the case management 

conference, the parties may now begin Phase II fact discovery. The Court modifies that schedule 

and sets the following specific dates and deadlines: 

The deadline to complete fact discovery on class certification shall be September 23, 2016. 

The last day to disclose experts on class certification shall be October 7, 2016. 

The deadline to disclose rebuttal experts on class certification shall be October 21, 2016. 

The deadline to complete expert discovery on class certification shall be November 23, 

2016. 

The deadline for Plaintiffs to file a motion for class certification shall be December 9, 

Case 4:14-md-02555-JSW Document 116 Filed 05/19/16 Page 17 of 18
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

201

“0.

Co

mo

Da

16. 

The ori

.” Accordin

ourt’s calend

otions filed i

IT IS S

ated: May 19

iginal case n

ngly, Plainti

dar for term

in this case.

SO ORDER

9, 2016 

number in t

iffs shall not

minal digit 0

RED. 

18

this litigatio

tice that mo

0, rather tha

___

JEF

Un

8

on, the Engu

otion for an

an terminal

__________

FFREY S. W

nited States D

urasoff case

n open and a

l digit 5. Th

___________

WHITE 

District Judg

e, bears term

available da

his rule appl

__________

ge 

minal digit 

ate on this 

lies for all 

________ 

Case 4:14-md-02555-JSW Document 116 Filed 05/19/16 Page 18 of 18