Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-03916/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-03916-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TROY BACKUS,

Plaintiff,

v.

BISCOMERICA CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-03916-HSG 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS

Re: Dkt. No. 38

Plaintiff Troy Backus brought this putative class action against Defendant Biscomerica 

Corporation, claiming that it violated California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) by selling 

packaged cookies that contained partially hydrogenated oil (“PHO”). See First Amended 

Complaint (“FAC”), Dkt. No. 35. The Court dismissed Backus’s original complaint on 

preemption grounds. See Dkt. No. 32. Backus’s amended complaint contains essentially the same 

allegations, except for alleging a narrower time period. And once again, Backus’s claims crumble. 

Because the Court finds that Backus cannot plead a plausible UCL claim, the Court GRANTS

Biscomerica’s motion to dismiss without leave to amend.1

I. BACKGROUND

A. Plaintiff’s Allegations

Biscomerica “manufactures, distributes, and sells a variety of packaged cookies” that 

contain partially hydrogenated oil. FAC ¶ 4. PHO is an artificial trans fat, a “toxic carcinogen for 

which there are many safe and commercially viable substitutes.” Id. ¶¶ 5–6. Trans fat “causes 

cardiovascular heart disease, diabetes, cancer, organ damage, and Alzheimer’s disease, and 

accelerates memory damage and cognitive decline.” Id. ¶ 17.

 

1 The Court finds that this matter is appropriate for disposition without oral argument. See Civ. 

L.R. 7–1(b).

Case 4:16-cv-03916-HSG Document 58 Filed 03/29/19 Page 1 of 10
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 California

Backus “repeatedly purchased and consumed” Biscomerica cookies containing PHO for 

“personal and household consumption.” Id. ¶ 9, 12. Until late 2015, he bought these cookies 

“approximately once a month from various California stores.” Id. ¶¶ 66–67. Backus was injured 

because he “lost money . . . because he purchased products that were detrimental to his health and 

were unfairly offered for sale in violation of federal and California law” and because he “suffered 

physical injury when he repeatedly consumed” the cookies. Id. ¶¶ 88–89. He was “unaware” that 

the cookies were “dangerous” because he “is a busy person and cannot reasonably inspect every 

ingredient of every food that he purchases for himself and others.” Id. ¶ 92.

B. Regulatory and Legislative Background

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) prohibits, among other things, the 

“introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of any food . . . that is 

adulterated.” 21 U.S.C. § 331(a). This includes food additives that are “not generally recognized, 

among [qualified] experts . . . to be safe under the conditions of [their] intended use.” Id. § 321(s); 

see also 21 C.F.R. 170.3(i) (defining “safe” as “a reasonable certainty in the minds of competent 

scientists that the substance is not harmful under the intended conditions of use”). Sections 342 

and 348 further describe the conditions under which food and food additives may be considered 

“unsafe” or “adulterated.” 21 U.S.C. §§ 342(a)(1), 342(a)(2)(C)(i), 348.

On November 8, 2013, the federal Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) “tentatively 

determined that there is no longer a consensus among qualified scientific experts that PHOs . . . 

are safe for human consumption.” Tentative Determination Regarding Partially Hydrogenated 

Oils (“Tentative Determination”), 78 Fed. Reg. 67169, 67169 (Nov. 8, 2013). If the FDA’s 

Tentative Determination that PHOs were no longer generally recognized as safe (“GRAS”) were 

to become final, then “food manufacturers would no longer be permitted to sell PHOs . . . without 

prior FDA approval for use as a food additive.” Id.

On June 17, 2015, the FDA confirmed its Tentative Determination, finding that “there is 

no longer a consensus among qualified experts that partially hydrogenated oils . . . are generally 

recognized as safe (GRAS) for any use in human food.” See Final Determination Regarding 

Partially Hydrogenated Oils (“Final Determination”), 80 Fed. Reg. 34650, 34650 (June 17, 2015). 

Case 4:16-cv-03916-HSG Document 58 Filed 03/29/19 Page 2 of 10
3

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

However, the Final Determination was not effective immediately—rather, the FDA set a 

compliance date of June 18, 2018. See id. This three-year window would allow the FDA to 

continue receiving and reviewing petitions to its order, see id. at 34,657, as well as minimize 

“market disruptions” and allow “industry sufficient time to identify suitable replacement 

ingredients for PHOs,” id. at 34,669.

The President then signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act into law on December 18, 

2015, which—consistent with the FDA’s Final Determination—stated that PHO would not be 

considered unsafe or adulterated under federal law until the June 18, 2018 compliance date. 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Pub. L. No. 114–113, § 754, 129 Stat. 2242, 2284 (2015)

(“Section 754”).

C. Prior Proceedings Before This Court

Backus brought his initial complaint in this Court on July 12, 2016, asserting causes of 

action under state law, including: (1) California’s UCL; (2) nuisance; and (3) the implied warranty 

of merchantability. See Complaint, Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 107–141. He asserted his claims on behalf of 

himself and a nationwide class of people who had purchased Biscomerica cookies on or after 

January 1, 2008. See id. ¶ 97.

On March 27, 2017, the Court granted Biscomerica’s motion to dismiss. See Dkt. No. 32. 

First, the Court held that Backus’s claim that the use of PHO was unlawful under the UCL failed 

because his interpretation of California’s Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law (“Sherman 

Law”) was preempted by Section 754. See id. at 4–6. Second, the Court held that use of PHO 

was not unfair under the UCL because it was similarly preempted. See id. at 6. Finally, the Court 

rejected Backus’s nuisance and implied warranty of merchantability claims. See id. at 6–8. The 

Court granted Backus leave to amend his complaint but noted that his “entire theory as to each 

cause of action currently pled is deficient as a matter of law.” Id. at 9.

D. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint

Backus filed an amended complaint on April 17, 2017, asserting two UCL-based causes of 

action. First, Backus claimed that Biscomerica’s use of PHO was unlawful under the UCL 

because the products were adulterated, thus violating the FDCA and the Sherman Law. See id. ¶¶ 

Case 4:16-cv-03916-HSG Document 58 Filed 03/29/19 Page 3 of 10
4

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

77–84, 107–20. Second, Backus claimed that Biscomerica’s use of PHO was unfair under the 

UCL. See id. ¶¶ 71–76, 121–27. He purported to bring his claim on behalf of himself and a 

nationwide class of people who had purchased Biscomerica cookies containing partially 

hydrogenated oil between January 1, 2008 and June 16, 2015. See id. ¶ 97.

Biscomerica filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on May 5, 2017. See Dkt. 

No. 38 (“Mot.”). Backus opposed on May 19, see Dkt. No. 40 (“Opp.”), and Biscomerica replied 

on June 1, see Dkt. No. 41 (“Reply”).

E. The Stay and Ninth Circuit Proceedings

On June 22, 2017, the Court stayed the action, over Biscomerica’s opposition, until two 

cases asserting similar claims were resolved by the Ninth Circuit. See Dkt. No. 45. In the first of 

those cases, Hawkins v. AdvancePierre Foods, Inc., the Ninth Circuit assumed, without deciding, 

that the plaintiff’s PHO claims were not preempted by federal law, but the court held that the 

plaintiff had nonetheless failed to state a claim for violation of the UCL or for breach of the 

implied warranty of merchantability. See 733 F. App’x 906, 906 (9th Cir. 2018). In the second 

case, Hawkins v. Kroger Co., the Ninth Circuit declined to reach the preemption issue. See 906 

F.3d 763, 772–73 (9th Cir. 2018). With the two cases decided, the Court lifted the stay on 

October 24, 2018 and ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefs addressing the impact of 

the two Hawkins cases. See Dkt. No. 55. Both Backus and Biscomerica filed supplemental briefs 

on November 8. See Dkt. Nos. 56, 57.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a complaint contain “a short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief[.]” A defendant may move to 

dismiss a complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). “Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate only where the 

complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory.” 

Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th Cir. 2008). To survive a Rule 

12(b)(6) motion, a plaintiff must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on 

its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible 

Case 4:16-cv-03916-HSG Document 58 Filed 03/29/19 Page 4 of 10
5

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

when a plaintiff pleads “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that 

the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 

In reviewing the plausibility of a complaint, courts “accept factual allegations in the 

complaint as true and construe the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” 

Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008). Nonetheless, 

Courts do not “accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of 

fact, or unreasonable inferences.” In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 

2008). 

If dismissal is appropriate under Rule 12(b)(6), a court “should grant leave to amend even 

if no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not 

possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 

2000) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

III. DISCUSSION

Backus asserts that because he purports to represent a class of consumers who purchased 

cookies containing PHO prior to the FDA’s Final Determination, “neither the FDA’s regulation 

nor the Appropriations Act can have any preemptive effect on Plaintiff’s claims.” See Opp. at 1. 

But Backus’s new theory is just as unappetizing as his original theory, because federal law is clear 

that there was nothing unlawful or unfair about selling cookies containing PHO during the

narrowed class period he pled in his amended complaint.

California’s UCL prohibits any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” 

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. The three “prongs” of the UCL are independent of each other 

and may be asserted as separate claims. Cel-Tech Commc’ns, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Tel. 

Co., 20 Cal. 4th 163, 180 (Cal. 1999). The “unlawful” prong of the UCL incorporates other laws 

and treats violations of those laws as unlawful business practices independently actionable under 

state law. McKell v. Washington Mut., Inc., 142 Cal. App. 4th 1457, 1474 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006). 

The “unfair” prong treats as actionable conduct that “violates established public policy or . . . is 

immoral, unethical, oppressive or unscrupulous and causes injury to consumers which outweighs 

its benefits.” Id. at 1473. The UCL cannot, however, be used to proscribe otherwise permitted 

Case 4:16-cv-03916-HSG Document 58 Filed 03/29/19 Page 5 of 10
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 California

conduct. Cel-Tech, 20 Cal. 4th at 182 (“If the Legislature has permitted certain conduct or 

considered a situation and concluded no action should lie, courts may not override that 

determination.”). Backus brings claims under both the “unlawful” and the “unfair” prongs of the 

UCL, see FAC ¶¶ 71–84, 107–27, and the Court will discuss them in turn.

A. Unlawful Business Practices

Backus alleges that Biscomerica’s use of PHO in its cookies was unlawful under both 

federal and state law. The Court disagrees.

i. The Use of PHO Was Not Unlawful Under Federal Law

First, Backus contends that PHO was not generally regarded as safe prior to the FDA’s 

Final Determination and thus Biscomerica’s use of PHO “rendered its products adulterated” under 

the FDCA. See FAC ¶ 77; Opp. at 1–3. But Congress was clear that use of PHO was not 

prohibited until 2018:

No partially hydrogenated oils as defined in the order published by 

the Food and Drug Administration in the Federal Register on June 17, 

2015 (80 Fed. Reg. 34650 et seq.) shall be deemed unsafe within the 

meaning of section 409(a) and no food that is introduced or delivered 

for introduction into interstate commerce that bears or contains a 

partially hydrogenated oil shall be deemed adulterated under sections 

402(a)(1) or 402(a)(2)(C)(i) by virtue of bearing or containing a 

partially hydrogenated oil until the compliance date as specified in 

such order (June 18, 2018).

§ 754, 129 Stat. at 2284. Recognizing that Section 754 was the basis on which the Court 

dismissed his original complaint, Backus amended his complaint to “no longer seek[] relief for 

consumers who purchased [Biscomerica’s] trans fat cookies after June 16, 2015, before the FDA 

enacted the compliance period.” Opp. at 1. Backus’s claim rests on his assertion that neither 

Section 754 nor the Final Determination have retroactive effect. Opp. at 4–6.

To be sure, there “is a presumption in American law against retroactive legislation.” 

Mtoched v. Lynch, 786 F.3d 1210, 1214 (9th Cir. 2015). But if “Congress has expressly 

prescribed the statute’s proper reach” then “there is no need to resort to judicial default rules.” 

Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 280 (1994). Here, Congress has done exactly that: it 

set a compliance date upon which use of PHOs would no longer be allowed under federal law. Cf. 

Backus v. Gen. Mills, Inc., No. 15-CV-01964-WHO, 2018 WL 6460441, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 

Case 4:16-cv-03916-HSG Document 58 Filed 03/29/19 Page 6 of 10
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 California

2018) (“Simply put, before June 18, 2018, the use of PHOs in food was permissible . . . .”). 

Moreover, the principles undergirding the presumption against retroactivity—“that individuals 

should have an opportunity to know what the law is and to conform their conduct accordingly,” 

Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 265—counsel towards finding Section 754 to be retroactive, because 

retroactivity would give producers time to conform their goods to the law. But according to

Backus, PHO was unsafe from January 2008 until the FDA’s Final Determination in June 2015, 

safe from June 2015 until the compliance date in June 2018, and unsafe again beginning in June 

2018. Not only does Backus’s formulation of Section 754 make little sense from a practical 

standpoint, but it would “impose a new duty . . . in respect to transactions or considerations 

already past,” see Vartelas v. Holder, 566 U.S. 257, 266 (2012) (alterations and internal quotation 

omitted), thus raising concerns about fairness and due process. The Court finds that Section 754 is 

retroactive, meaning that Biscomerica did not violate federal law by selling cookies containing 

PHO during the class period.

Even if Section 754 was not retroactive, two years before it was enacted the FDA 

recognized that PHOs “have a long history of use as food ingredients” dating back to the 1930s. 

Tentative Determination, 78 Fed. Reg. at 67170; see also Final Determination, 80 Fed. Reg. at 

34651. Although two of the PHOs most commonly used in the food industry in 2013 were not 

“listed as GRAS in FDA’s regulations . . . these and other commonly used PHOs . . . have been 

considered GRAS (through a GRAS self-determination) by the food industry for use in food at 

levels consistent with good manufacturing practice based on a history of use prior to 1958.” 

Tentative Determination, 78 Fed. Reg. at 67170–71; see also Final Determination, 80 Fed. Reg. at 

34651. In other words, even before Section 754 and the Final Determination created a compliance 

period, the FDA stated that PHO had historically been generally regarded as safe.

Because PHO was permitted prior to the 2018 compliance date and the FDA recognized 

that it was generally regarded as safe, Backus has not pled a plausible claim that Biscomerica

violated federal law by selling cookies containing PHO prior to June 17, 2015. Cf. Backus v. 

Conagra Foods, Inc., No. C 16-00454 WHA, 2016 WL 3844331, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2016)

(holding that federal law “cannot serve as the basis for [plaintiff’s] ‘unlawful’ claim”).

Case 4:16-cv-03916-HSG Document 58 Filed 03/29/19 Page 7 of 10
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 California

ii. The Use of PHO Could Not Have Been Unlawful Under State Law

Second, Backus asserts that Biscomerica’s use of PHO during the class period was

unlawful under California’s Sherman Law. See FAC ¶ 113–15. Once again, the Court finds that 

“to interpret the Sherman Law’s broad prohibition of ‘adulterated’ food as covering PHO would 

effectively negate Congress’ decision to set the compliance date in June 2018.” See Dkt. No. 32 at 

5.

The Sherman Law does not specifically prohibit the use of PHO nor completely ban the 

use of trans fats. Rather, the Sherman Law largely tracks federal law, prohibiting the sale or 

advertisement of “adulterated” food and food additives. See, e.g., Cal. Health & Safety Code 

§§ 110398, 110545, 110620. And the Sherman Law adopts all FDA regulations as state 

regulations. See Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 110085, 110115. 

As discussed above, the use of PHO in food products was not prohibited by federal law 

during the class period. Thus, Biscomerica could not have violated Cal. Health & Safety Code § 

110100, the portion of the Sherman Law that adopts federal law. See AdvancePierre Foods, 733 

F. App’x at 907.

Backus also argues that PHO is a “poisonous and deleterious substance,” thus rendering 

food containing PHO “adulterated” under California law independent of federal law. See Opp. at 

3–4. But the Sherman Law could not independently prohibit the use of PHO, because federal law 

would preempt such a conclusion. In 2013 (during the amended complaint’s class period), the 

FDA noted that there was a changing scientific consensus on the safety of PHOs, which had been 

generally regarded as safe and used in food products for decades. See Tentative Determination, 78 

Fed. Reg. at 67170. The FDA and Congress later declared in a rulemaking and in legislation that 

foods containing PHO would not be deemed unsafe or adulterated until June 2018. See § 754, 129 

Stat. at 2284; Final Determination, 80 Fed. Reg. at 34651. This three-year compliance period was 

necessary to minimize “market disruptions” and ensure that there was “sufficient time to identify 

suitable replacement ingredients.” See Final Determination, 80 Fed. Reg. at 34657, 34669. If 

Backus was correct that PHO was independently prohibited under state law, this prohibition would 

“stand[] as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of 

Case 4:16-cv-03916-HSG Document 58 Filed 03/29/19 Page 8 of 10
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 California

Congress.” Ting v. AT&T, 319 F.3d 1126, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation omitted). In 

effect, he would be creating an immediate (albeit belated) ban on the use of PHO from the 

beginning of the class period in January 2008 to the FDA’s Final Determination in June 2015. But 

such a delayed and drastic measure would stand as an obstacle to the FDA’s careful considerations 

in 2013, the FDA’s regulatory scheme creating a three-year window to minimize disruption and 

identify replacements, and Congress’s ratification of the decision to allow partially hydrogenated 

oils until the 2018 compliance date. And it would negate Congress’s decision to create a 

compliance date which, as discussed above, had retroactive effect. Accordingly, the Court finds 

that Backus’s interpretation of the Sherman Law is barred based on the principle of conflict 

preemption.

B. Unfair Business Practices

Backus also claims that Biscomerica’s use of PHO was unfair under the UCL. See FAC ¶¶ 

71–76, 121–27. Just as before, this cause of action fails because it is preempted by the FDCA. 

The FDA recognized that PHO was historically generally recognized as safe and Congress 

established a compliance date, before which time companies could still use PHO in their products. 

Backus cannot sidestep these decisions by the federal government by “relabel[ing] the nature of 

the action as one brought under the unfair competition statute.” Cel-Tech, 20 Cal. 4th at 182 

(quotation omitted). And Backus has not identified any action that Biscomerica took independent 

from the use of PHO in its cookies to support his unfair practice claim.

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 4:16-cv-03916-HSG Document 58 Filed 03/29/19 Page 9 of 10
10

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

IV. CONCLUSION

Backus’s allegations in his amended complaint—which, other than the end date of the 

class period are the same as those in his original complaint—are deficient as a matter of law. 

Because the Court has already granted Backus leave to amend once before, and any further 

amendment would be futile, the Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss without leave to amend. 

The Clerk is directed to close the case and enter judgment in favor of Defendant.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 3/29/19

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:16-cv-03916-HSG Document 58 Filed 03/29/19 Page 10 of 10