Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00760/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00760-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 

---

1 

17cv760-MMA (KSC) 

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 

ELIZABETH ZEMOLA, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

v. 

CARRINGTON TEA COMPANY, LLC, 

Defendant.

 Case No.: 17cv760-MMA (KSC) 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIM FOR 

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

[Doc. No. 20] 

 Defendant Carrington Tea Company, LLC moves to dismiss Plaintiffs Elizabeth 

Zemola and Matthew Beaumont’s amended claim for injunctive relief pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) based on Plaintiffs’ purported lack of standing to seek 

prospective relief. See Doc. No. 20. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion, to which 

Defendant replied. See Doc. Nos. 23, 24. The Court took the matter under submission 

on the briefs and without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1. See Doc. 

No. 25. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion. 

Case 3:17-cv-00760-MMA-KSC Document 26 Filed 01/24/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2 

17cv760-MMA (KSC) 

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

DISCUSSION

 This action arises out of Plaintiffs’ purchase of coconut oil products.1 Plaintiffs 

generally allege that Defendant has engaged in misleading marketing and labeling of its 

coconut oil products as “healthy,” in violation of California’s consumer protection laws. 

The Court previously determined that Plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue their claim for 

injunctive relief based on the failure to allege that they would purchase the coconut oil 

products in the future. See Doc. No. 18 at 7-8. The Court granted Plaintiffs leave to 

amend their claim, and Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint setting forth the 

following additional allegations in support of Plaintiff Matthew Beaumont’s standing to 

seek injunctive relief: 

127. Mr. Beaumont remain [sic] in the market for, and interested in purchasing 

healthy cooking oils. 

128. He regularly shops at stores such as Target and Sprouts, where the 

Products are sold. 

129. If he encountered the Products containing the same or similar health and 

wellness labeling claims in the future, they [sic] might reasonably might 

assume that the Products had been reformulated to make them healthier, or 

that new scientific evidence supported the claims, and on that basis would 

consider and likely be interested in purchasing the Products again. Without 

prospective injunctive relief requiring Carrington to label the Products in a 

truthful manner, he and other consumers will be unable to determine whether 

a future label bearing similar claims is valid, or whether Carrington has simply 

resumed misleading behavior, and thus will be unable to decide how best to 

spend his money. 

130. The continued use of the challenged claims on the Products’ labels 

threatens to repeatedly infringe upon the substantive right California’s 

consumer protection statutes give plaintiffs to be free from fraud in the 

marketplace. 

                                               

1

 The factual background set forth in the Court’s October 30, 2017 Order Denying Defendant’s Motion 

to Dismiss in Substantial Part and Denying Defendant’s Motion to Stay [Doc. No. 18] is incorporated by 

reference herein. 

Case 3:17-cv-00760-MMA-KSC Document 26 Filed 01/24/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3 

17cv760-MMA (KSC) 

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

FAC, Doc. No. 19. Based on these allegations, Plaintiffs seek an injunction preventing 

Defendant from engaging in “deceptive practices,” “in the form of modified advertising 

and a corrective advertising plan.” Id. ¶¶ 150, 167. 

Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiffs’ amended claim for injunctive relief, 

arguing that the additional allegations are insufficient to establish Plaintiffs’ standing to 

bring the claim. See Doc. No. 20. Defendant points out that Plaintiffs do not allege any 

facts supporting Plaintiff Zemola’s intent to purchase coconut oil products in the future. 

Defendant further contends that Plaintiff Beaumont’s claim – that he may once again 

purchase products which he alleges to be intrinsically unhealthy – is implausible. 

As this Court previously noted, the Ninth Circuit recently clarified the standing 

requirements for pursuing injunctive relief in consumer protection actions. See Doc. No. 

18 at 8 (citing Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 873 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2017)). 

Pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s holding in Davidson, “a previously deceived plaintiff may 

have standing to seek injunctive relief” for violations of California’s consumer protection 

laws if the plaintiff alleges that he “faces an imminent or actual threat of future harm” 

due to the defendant’s false advertising. Davidson, 873 F.3d at 1115-16. The circuit 

court further explained that the threat of future harm may be “the consumer’s plausible 

allegations that she will be unable to rely on the product’s advertising or labeling in the 

future, and so will not purchase the product although she would like to,” or it may be the 

“consumer’s plausible allegations that she might purchase the product in the future” as 

she may reasonably, but incorrectly, assume the product was improved. Id. at 1115. 

Here, Plaintiff Beaumont claims that he would like to purchase coconut oil 

products in the future; he shops at stores that sell the products; and absent injunctive 

relief, in the future he may rely on Defendant’s mislabeling to conclude that the products 

have been reformulated or otherwise proven to be healthy, when in fact they have not. 

Defendant asserts that Plaintiff Beaumont’s allegations are implausible, as there is no 

manner in which to reformulate a single-ingredient product, and contradict the crux of his 

theory of liability – that coconut oil products are unhealthy. However, the Court must 

Case 3:17-cv-00760-MMA-KSC Document 26 Filed 01/24/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4 

17cv760-MMA (KSC) 

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

assume the truth of Plaintiffs’ allegations at this stage in the proceedings. See Snyder & 

Associates Acquisitions LLC v. United States, 859 F.3d 1152, 1155 n.1 (9th Cir. 2017) 

(facial jurisdictional attack under Rule 12(b)(1) requires the court to “accept as true all 

facts alleged in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs’ favor.”). 

And even if Beaumont is unlikely to purchase Defendant’s coconut oil products in the 

future given his apparent beliefs regarding the healthfulness of coconut oil generally, it is 

not entirely implausible that he might do so and suffer harm as a result. 

As the Ninth Circuit noted in Davidson, “[k]nowledge that the advertisement or 

label was false in the past does not equate to knowledge that it will remain false in the 

future.” Davidson, 873 F.3d at1115. Moreover, the prohibition of injunctive relief for “a 

consumer who learns after purchasing a product that the product’s label is false” would 

sharply undermine the purpose of California’s consumer protection laws. Id. at 1115-16 

(explaining that California’s consumer protection laws “would be effectively gutted” 

absent injunctive relief). Based on Plaintiffs’ additional allegations, and mindful of the 

Ninth Circuit’s guidance in Davidson, the Court concludes that Plaintiff Beaumont has 

pleaded facts sufficient to demonstrate standing to pursue injunctive relief. As such, 

dismissal is not appropriate. See Rumsfeld v. Forum for Acad. & Institutional Rights, 

Inc., 547 U.S. 47, 52 n.2 (2006) (“[T]he presence of one party with standing is sufficient 

to satisfy Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement.”). 

CONCLUSION

 For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to dismiss 

Plaintiffs’ amended claim for injunctive relief. Defendant must file an answer to the First 

Amended Complaint within fourteen (14) days from the date this Order is filed. See Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4)(A). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: January 24, 2018 _______________________________________ 

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:17-cv-00760-MMA-KSC Document 26 Filed 01/24/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4