Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02568/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02568-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

KATHRYN WORKMAN, on behalf of

herself and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

 v.

PLUM INC., D/B/A/ PLUM ORGANICS,

Defendant. /

No. C 15-02568 WHA

ORDER RE MOTION 

TO DISMISS

INTRODUCTION

In this food-labeling challenge, defendant food manufacturer moves to dismiss for failure

to state a claim. To the extent stated herein, defendant’s motion is GRANTED.

STATEMENT

Plaintiff Kathryn Workman purchased several varieties of defendant Plum’s Organics

Mighty 4 puree pouches and fruit bars in 2014 and 2015. Each Mighty 4 product at issue in our

case consists of a puree pouch of blended ingredients or fruit bars marketed for consumption by

toddlers. In purchasing the products, plaintiff read, relied on, and was allegedly deceived by the

labeling and advertising displayed on the front packaging, namely the pictures of the ingredients

on the principal display panel. Each label at issue showed a picture containing ingredients from

four different food groups. For example one flavor of puree pouch depicted pumpkin,

pomegranate, quinoa, and yogurt, as shown below (Defendant’s RJN; Exh. 1): 

Case 3:15-cv-02568-WHA Document 46 Filed 11/02/15 Page 1 of 7
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

2

These ingredients, however, were not the only items contained in the puree pouches and fruit

bars. In fact, the most prominent ingredients in most of the products were apple, pear, or banana

puree. As required by the FDA, the products contained a “Nutrition Facts” panel, listing all

ingredients in descending order of predominance.

Essentially, plaintiff claims that the products’ front packaging conveyed that the contents

were largely made up of the pictured ingredients (such as pumpkin, pomegranate, quinoa, and

yogurt), when, in fact, these were not the most prominent ingredients. Thus, plaintiff argues,

these deceptive labels violated the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act Section 1750 and

the California Business and Professions Code Section 17200. 

Now, defendant moves to dismiss for (1) failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), (2)

lack of standing, and (3) failure to plead with sufficient particularity under Rule 9. This order

follows full briefing and oral argument.

Case 3:15-cv-02568-WHA Document 46 Filed 11/02/15 Page 2 of 7
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

3

ANALYSIS

1. MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER RULE 12(b)(6).

To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,

accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.

662, 663 (2009). While a court deciding a motion to dismiss must take a complaint’s wellpleaded factual allegations as true, it also must determine, relying on its “judicial experience and

common sense,” whether those allegations amount to a “plausible” claim. Id. at 664. 

In our case, plaintiff’s claims for relief are governed by the reasonable consumer test. 

Under this standard, a plaintiff must show that “members of the public are likely to be deceived”

by the product at issue. Freeman v. Time, Inc., 68 F.3d 285, 289 (9th Cir. 1995). The California

Supreme Court has recognized “that these laws prohibit not only advertising which is false, but

also advertising which, although true, is either actually misleading or which has the capacity,

likelihood or tendency to deceive or confuse the public.” Leoni v. State Bar, 39 Cal.3d 609, 626

(1985). 

Here, plaintiff has not met Iqbal’s plausibility requirement. After carefully reviewing the

labels at issue, this order finds that a reasonable consumer would not be deceived by them. 

Plaintiff concedes that the labels contain no affirmative misrepresentations and that all of the

items pictured are actually present in the product. In contrast to plaintiff’s assertions, a

reasonable consumer would simply not view pictures on the packaging of a puree pouch or box of

fruit bars and assume that the size of the items pictured directly correlated with their

predominance in the blend. One can hardly walk down the aisles of a supermarket without

viewing large pictures depicting vegetable or fruit flavors, when the products themselves are

largely made up of a different base ingredient. Every reasonable shopper knows that the devil is

in the details. Moreover, any potential ambiguity could be resolved by the back panel of the

products, which listed all ingredients in order of predominance, as required by the FDA. As our

court of appeals stated in this context, “reasonable consumers expect that the ingredient list

contains more detailed information about the product that confirms other representations on the

packaging.” Williams v. Gerber Products Co., 552 F.3d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 2008).

Case 3:15-cv-02568-WHA Document 46 Filed 11/02/15 Page 3 of 7
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

While our court of appeals has never addressed the issue of true but allegedly deceptive

pictures on food labels under the CLRA, this order agrees with the numerous decisions that have

dismissed similar food labeling claims at the pleading stage. Where some plaintiffs alleged

deceptive advertising in the sale of crackers where the packaging read: “made with real

vegetables,” the district court rejected that claim. Red v. Kraft, No. 10-1028, 2012 WL 5504011,

at *3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2012) (Judge George Wu). Red held that “plaintiffs’ theory of the case

is that the packaging suggests the product is healthy and contains a significant amount of

vegetables because the packaging boasts that the crackers are made with real vegetables and

depicts vegetables. The fact remains that the product is a box of crackers, and a reasonable

consumer will be familiar with the fact of life that a cracker is not composed of primarily fresh

vegetables.” Ibid.

Where a plaintiff alleged that a package of dip labeled with the statement, “with garden

vegetables” had been misleading because it would likely to deceive a reasonable consumer, the

district court rejected that claim. Henderson v. Gruma Corporation, No. 10-4173, 2011 WL

1362188, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2011) (Judge Howard Matz). Henderson held that a product

that contained avocado powder, dehydrated onion, garlic powder, and bell pepper would be

unlikely to deceive a reasonable consumer because the product “does in fact contain vegetables

that can be grown in a garden.” Id. at *12. While Henderson declined to dismiss the plaintiff’s

claim related to the large “guacamole” label and pictures of avocados, that was because the

product itself did not actually constitute guacamole.

Here, plaintiff’s claim fails at the threshold. The products at issue do not display any

affirmative misrepresentations. They merely show pictures of featured ingredients contained in

the puree pouch and fruit bars. No reasonable consumer would expect the size of the flavors

pictured on the label to directly correlate with the predominance of the pictured ingredient in the

puree blend. 

In opposition, plaintiff largely relies on our court of appeals’ decision in Williams, cited

above, which stated that “California courts . . . have recognized that whether a business practice is

deceptive will usually be a question of fact not appropriate for decision on demurrer” and further

Case 3:15-cv-02568-WHA Document 46 Filed 11/02/15 Page 4 of 7
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

stated that motions to dismiss on the grounds that a reasonable consumer could not plausibly have

been deceived should only be granted in “rare situations.” Williams, 552 F.3d at 938–39. 

Moreover, Williams declared: “We do not think that the FDA requires an ingredient list so that

manufacturers can mislead consumers and then rely on the ingredient list to correct those

misinterpretations and provide a shield for liability for the deception.” Ibid. 

That decision, however, is materially distinguishable from our case. Williams involved

fruit snacks packaging displaying pictures of several fruits. There, our court of appeals found

three potentially deceptive aspects of the defendant’s label:

The product is called “fruit juice snacks” and the packaging

pictures a number of different fruits, potentially suggesting

(falsely) that those fruits or their juices are contained in the

product. Further, the statement that Fruit Juice Snacks was made

with “fruit juice and other all natural ingredients” could easily be

interpreted by consumers as a claim that all the ingredients in the

product were natural, which appears to be false. And finally, the

claim that Snacks is “just one of a variety of nutritious Gerber

Graduates foods and juices that have been specifically designed to

help toddlers grow up strong and healthy” adds to the potential

deception.

Ibid. As an initial matter, Williams issued shortly before the Supreme Court significantly

changed the Rule 12 pleading standards in Iqbal, cited above. Furthermore, our court of appeals’

main reservations about the deceptiveness of the fruit juice snacks label related to its

affirmatively false statements. There, the display panel showed pictures of many fruits not

actually contained in the product. In addition, the label stated that the snacks were made with

“other all natural ingredients” when, in fact, many of the ingredients happened to be unnatural. 

Based on this language, the undersigned judge held in a previous decision involving the true

statement “made with real fruit,” that Williams’ applicability was limited to affirmative

misrepresentations: “Plaintiff’s reliance on Williams v. Gerber is inapposite because that action

involved an affirmative misrepresentation. The packaging of the ‘fruit juice snacks’ in Williams

contained pictures of different fruits not actually contained in the product.” Manchouck v.

Modelez Int’l Inc., No. 13–02148, 2013 WL 5400285 (N.D. Cal. Sept 26, 2013) at *3. This order

stands by that previous ruling. Here, in contrast to Williams, the packaging at issue contained no

Case 3:15-cv-02568-WHA Document 46 Filed 11/02/15 Page 5 of 7
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

6

affirmative misrepresentations and the pictures were simply not likely to mislead a reasonable

consumer. 

Williams’ final beef with the fruit juice snacks involved the “nutritious” statement, quoted

above. In a footnote, however, Williams qualified this assertion, stating that the “claim that

Snacks is ‘nutritious,’ were it standing on its own, could arguably constitute puffery, since

nutritiousness can be difficult to measure concretely. . . . This statement certainly contributes,

however, to the deceptive context of the packaging as a whole.” Williams, 552 F.3d at 939 at n.

3. Therefore, any puffery-like statements (or pictures) on the Mighty 4 label, standing alone,

would not rise to the level of being deceptive.

Other than relying on Williams, plaintiff’s opposition and complaint merely reiterate that

the pictures displaying “a heaping mound of greek yogurt,” “a mound of quinoa,” and “plenteous

quantities of pumpkin” would lead a reasonable consumer to believe that those ingredients were

the primary ingredients in the puree pouch or fruit bar (Compl. ¶¶ 16–19). In addition, at oral

argument, plaintiff asserted that the packaging would mislead a reasonable consumer because it

did not display pictures of applesauce (the primary ingredient in many of the products). For the

reasons stated above, these allegations are insufficient.

Defendant also moves to dismiss based on plaintiff’s alleged lack of standing and

plaintiff’s failure to plead with sufficient particularity under Rule 9. Because this order finds that

plaintiff has failed to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), it need not address those arguments.

2. JUDICIAL NOTICE.

Defendant requests judicial notice of the eleven product labels at issue in our case

(Defendant Exhs. 1–11). Plaintiff does not oppose. Defendant’s requests for judicial notice are

GRANTED, as the contents of these documents are “not subject to reasonable dispute,” and are

incorporated into the complaint by reference. FRE 201. 

CONCLUSION

To the extent stated herein, defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Appended to her

opposition, plaintiff submitted a proposed amended complaint, the only substantive change being

that plaintiff seeks money damages for the CLRA claim. At oral argument, plaintiff also stated

Case 3:15-cv-02568-WHA Document 46 Filed 11/02/15 Page 6 of 7
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

7

that amendment should be allowed because defendant had recently issued a press release

indicating that it would be changing its product labeling. Defendant’s press release is irrelevant

to the legal issue presented here. Moreover, as this order finds that the labels at issue are not

deceptive, and the labels themselves cannot be changed by a new complaint, any amendment

would be futile. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Thus, leave to amend is

DENIED. Judgment will be entered separately. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 2, 2015. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:15-cv-02568-WHA Document 46 Filed 11/02/15 Page 7 of 7