Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01964/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01964-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

United States District Court

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TROY BACKUS,

Plaintiff,

v.

GENERAL MILLS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-01964-TEH 

ORDER RE: AUGUST 17, 2015 

HEARING

The parties shall come to the August 17, 2015 hearing prepared to address the 

following questions. 

For Plaintiff: 

1. How has Plaintiff suffered an economic injury, if he was not misled into 

purchasing baking mixes and only later realized that they may be unhealthy? 

2. Why did the Supreme Court’s decision in Clapper v. Amnesty International

not abrogate the cases Plaintiff cites for the standard for standing based on a probabilistic 

future injury? 

3. Why does the FDA’s decision to set a compliance date for its final order in 

2018 not establish that the continued sale of PHOs is lawful until that time? 

4. Many of Plaintiff’s cited cases regarding the application of the primary 

jurisdiction doctrine involved misrepresentation claims, not unlawful ingredient claims. 

Why do these cases show that the primary jurisdiction doctrine is inappropriate here? 

5. Given that the presence of partially hydrogenated oil was disclosed on the 

baking mixes’ labels, why is Plaintiff’s implied warranty of merchantability claim not 

merely a challenge to the sufficiency of General Mills’ labels?

///

///

Case 3:15-cv-01964-WHO Document 29 Filed 08/13/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

Northern District of California

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

For Defendant: 

1. Why are Plaintiff’s allegations that he suffered inflamed organs from eating 

trans fats not sufficient to confer standing in this case? 

2. Why has Plaintiff not alleged a sufficient economic injury by alleging that he 

spent money on food products that are unfit for human consumption? 

3. The Court is not aware of any federal regulation that ever formally 

recognized PHOs as GRAS (as opposed to recognizing that the industry treated PHOs as 

GRAS), and the FDA has now determined that they are not GRAS. Why has Plaintiff not 

therefore plausibly stated a claim that the baking mixes are an adulterated food under 

California Health & Safety Code section 110545? 

4. In evaluating the plausibility of Plaintiff’s implied warranty of 

merchantability claim, must the Court consider whether a reasonable consumer would be 

aware of the health risks involved in eating partially hydrogenated oils? 

5. Given the FDA’s final determination on the GRAS status of PHOs and the 

findings therein, why should the Court apply the primary jurisdiction doctrine in this case, 

when the FDA has indicated it may take up to three years to review food additive 

petitions? 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 08/13/15 _____________________________________ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01964-WHO Document 29 Filed 08/13/15 Page 2 of 2