Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00567/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00567-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 245
Nature of Suit: Real Property Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VICTOR GUTTMANN, on behalf of

himself and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

 v.

NISSIN FOODS (U.S.A.) COMPANY,

INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C 15-00567 WHA

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

TO DISMISS

INTRODUCTION

In this putative class action involving instant noodles, defendant moves to dismiss the

complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). A prior order dismissed several claims

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). For the reasons stated below, defendant’s motion to dismiss is

GRANTED.

STATEMENT

Our plaintiff, Victor Guttmann, seeks to eradicate artificial trans-fat from food and, to

that end, has sued five different manufacturers over artificial trans-fat. In this case, Guttmann

goes after instant noodle products manufactured and sold by defendant Nissin Foods (U.S.A.)

Company, Inc. Nissin’s noodle products contained partially-hydrogenated oil, a food additive

derived from low-cost oils (Amd. Compl. ¶¶ 10–15, 58).

Guttmann’s complaint cites numerous studies that have linked the consumption of

artificial trans-fat to increased risk of certain medical conditions such as cardiovascular heart

Case 3:15-cv-00567-WHA Document 59 Filed 08/14/15 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

 Guttmann argues that his litigation history is not contained within the pleadings, and so cannot be

considered in this order. Although allegations of fact in a complaint are accepted as true for the purposes of

adjudicating a motion to dismiss, such allegations may be rejected if contradicted by matters properly subject to

judicial notice. Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001). Accordingly,

2

disease, diabetes, breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, and organ damage. 

In particular, the complaint alleges “[t]here is ‘no safe level’ of artificial trans fat intake” and

“any incremental increase in trans fat increases risk of [cardiovascular heart disease]” (id. ¶¶

16–56). The use of partially-hydrogenated oils was not required by law, and while this motion

was pending, the Food and Drug Administration issued a final determination that partiallyhydrogenated oils are no longer “generally recognized as safe.” 80 Fed. Reg. 34650 (June 17,

2015). Pursuant to that determination, manufacturers must remove partially-hydrogenated oils

from their products within three years.

Although all of Nissin’s noodle products contained partially-hydrogenated oils (and

listed those oils among the ingredients of those products), the nutrition-facts panel on each of

the product labels included the indication “Trans Fat: 0g.” FDA regulations do not (and did not)

require trans-fat content to be declared in the nutrition-facts panel on a product label, however,

“[i]f the serving contains less than 0.5 gram[s of trans-fat], the content, when declared, shall be

expressed as zero.” 21 C.F.R. 101.9(c)(2)(ii).

Guttmann claims that he assumed all of Nissin’s noodle products were safe to consume,

and he notes that several products similar to Nissin’s noodles do not contain artificial trans-fat

(Amd. Compl. ¶¶ 76-84; Appendix B). He also claims he was economically harmed because he

was deprived of the benefit of his bargain, having thought he got safe food when, in fact, he got

unsafe food.

Guttmann has been a plaintiff in three prior lawsuits regarding artificial trans-fat and food

labeling. Chacanaca v. The Quaker Oats Company, No. 10-0502 (N.D. Cal.) (Judge Richard

Seeborg); Eileen Peivani v. Hostess Brands, Inc., No 10-02303 (C.D. Cal.) (Judge Consuelo

Marshall); Guttmann v. Ole Mexican Foods, Inc., No 14-04845 (N.D. Cal.) (Judge Haywood

Gilliam). Since commencing this action he has filed an additional lawsuit, Guttmann v.

La Tapatia Tortilleria, Inc., No 15-02042 (Judge Susan Illston).1

Case 3:15-cv-00567-WHA Document 59 Filed 08/14/15 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Guttmann’s litigation history is appropriate to consider. 

3

A prior order dismissed Guttmann’s claims that pertained to product labeling as well as his

claim for public nuisance (Dkt. No. 53). Guttmann’s claims for violation of the unfair prong of

the California Unfair Competition Law, California Business & Professions Code Section 17200,

et seq., and for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability are the only claims remaining.

Nissin moves to dismiss Guttmann’s complaint for lack of standing and failure to state a

claim. Following full briefing and oral argument, the parties were ordered to conduct limited

discovery regarding Guttmann’s alleged increased risk of medical harm and his knowledge that

all foods containing partially-hydrogenated oils, including Nissin’s noodles, contained artificial

trans-fat. Both parties filed supplemental briefs detailing that limited discovery, although

Guttmann’s was untimely.

ANALYSIS

In his deposition taken in the limited discovery ordered for the purpose of this motion,

Guttmann admitted facts that were already clear from his pleadings in his prior complaints,

namely, that as of 2010 when he commenced his litigation campaign, he was aware that

(i) products could be labeled “0g Trans Fat” if they contained less than 0.5 grams of trans-fat,

(ii) partially-hydrogenated oils contained artificial trans-fat, (iii) he could check the ingredients

labels on food products to see if they contained partially-hydrogenated oils, and (iv) artificial

trans-fat was linked to health risks (Guttmann Dep. at 40–48). Further, Guttmann admitted that

he actually did inspect some product labels to discern whether they contained dangerous transfats (id. at 56). 

It is undisputed that Nissin listed partially-hydrogenated oils among the ingredients on all

of its product labels, and judicial notice has already been taken of the contents of the product

labels (Dkt. No. 53). Thus, this order finds Guttmann was keenly aware of the alleged injury he

might suffer by eating Nissin’s noodles, and he knew he could have avoided any such injury

caused by Nissin by simply checking the product label. This fact is fatal to Guttmann’s

remaining claims.

Case 3:15-cv-00567-WHA Document 59 Filed 08/14/15 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

1. UNFAIR PRONG OF SECTION 17200.

An act or practice cannot be unfair within the meaning of Section 17200 if it caused an

“injury the [plaintiff] could reasonably have avoided.” Daugherty v. American Honda Motor

Co., Inc., 144 Cal. App. 4th 824, 839 (2006). As discussed above, since commencing his

litigation campaign in 2010, Guttmann could reasonably have avoided any injury based on

Nissin’s use of artificial trans-fat by reading the nutrition-facts panel and deciding not to

purchase or consume them based on the presence of partially-hydrogenated oil. Guttmann

alleges that he purchased and consumed Nissin’s noodles prior to becoming aware of the alleged

dangers of partially-hydrogenated oil and artificial trans-fat in 2010, but any claims based on

those purchases are barred by the four-year statute of limitations. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code

§ 17208. Thus, Guttmann’s claim under the unfair prong of Section 17200 must be DISMISSED.

2. IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY.

Guttmann also claims that he suffered a financial harm by purchasing Nissin’s noodle

products, which he argues were not “fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are

used,” in breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. Cal. Com. Code § 2314(2)(c);

Cal. Civ. Code § 1791.1(a)(2). To breach the implied warranty of merchantability, a product

must lack “even the most basic degree of fitness for ordinary use.” Mocek v. Alfa Leisure, Inc.,

114 Cal. App. 4th 402, 406 (2003). If a buyer “has examined the goods or the sample model as

fully as he desired or has refused to examine the goods,” however, “there is no implied warranty

with regard to defects which an examination ought in the circumstances to have revealed to

him.” Cal. Com. Code § 2316. Accordingly, even if Guttmann could claim that Nissin’s

noodles were unfit for human consumption due to the presence of artificial trans-fat, Guttmann

could have easily discovered that defect by reading the ingredients, which undisputedly listed

partially-hydrogenated oils.

Guttmann cites Reid v. Johnson & Johnson, 780 F.3d 952, 958-59 (9th Cir. 2015), for

the contention that the inclusion of partially-hydrogenated vegetable oil on an ingredient list

does not have a “curative effect” for a manufacturer’s conduct that could give rise to liability,

because a “typical consumer” would not understand that ingredient includes artificial trans-fat. 

Case 3:15-cv-00567-WHA Document 59 Filed 08/14/15 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

This order need not determine whether a typical consumer could have a claim for breach of the

implied warranty of merchantability because Guttmann is not a typical consumer but is a selfappointed inspector general roving the aisles of our supermarkets. He continues on a five-year

litigation campaign against artificial trans-fat and partially-hydrogenated oil and has admitted

that he has inspected products for those ingredients before. Guttmann’s apparent refusal to

inspect Nissin’s noodles for an alleged defect despite his extensive knowledge of and concern

for this particular ingredient is fatal to his claim for breach of the implied warranty of

merchantability.

Guttmann’s argument that he purchased Nissin’s noodles prior to becoming aware of the

alleged dangers of partially-hydrogenated oil and artificial trans-fat in 2010 fails on this claim as

well, as the statute of limitations for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability is also

four years. Cal. Com. Code § 2725.

Accordingly, Guttmann’s claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability must

be DISMISSED.

CONCLUSION

Nissin’s motion to dismiss the remaining claims under Rule 12(b)(6) is GRANTED. The

sworn evidentiary record developed through limited discovery demonstrates that no amendment

to the pleadings can overcome the fact that plaintiff could have avoided any injury caused by

defendants’ use of artificial trans-fat in its noodles. Thus, leave to amend will be not be allowed

due to futility. This case is now ready for the court of appeals.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 14, 2015. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:15-cv-00567-WHA Document 59 Filed 08/14/15 Page 5 of 5