Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02042/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02042-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Victor Guttmann
Plaintiff
La Tapatia Tortilleria, Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

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

VICTOR GUTTMANN,

Plaintiff,

v.

LA TAPATIA TORTILLERIA, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-02042-SI 

ORDER SETTING DISCOVERY AND 

BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON QUESTION 

OF STANDING

Re: Dkt. No. 16, 30

For the reasons which follow, the hearing on defendant's pending motion to dismiss, 

currently scheduled for August 28, 2015, is continued to October 9, 2015 at 9:00 a.m.

BACKGROUND

This is a consumer class action. Defendant, La Tapatia Tortilleria, Inc., is the manufacturer 

of various food products containing the statement “0g Trans Fat” on their labels and/or packaging.

Complaint ¶ 76. This statement is often accompanied by a statement of “Healthier Options” or an 

image of a heart. Id. ¶¶71-76. Plaintiff, Victor Guttmann, alleges that the product label is false and 

misleading, because the products contain partially hydrogenated oils (“PHO”), which are 

themselves a form of trans fat. Id. ¶ 14. Plaintiff states that approximately once a month “over the 

past several years,” he purchased a package of defendant’s PHO-containing tortilla product. 

Complaint ¶ 10, 66. He alleges that he relied on the misleading labeling in deciding to purchase 

the tortillas. Id. ¶ 69. Plaintiff discusses in great detail the health risks associated with the 

consumption of PHOs, citing studies linking its consumption to increased risk of heart disease, 

Case 3:15-cv-02042-SI Document 32 Filed 08/18/15 Page 1 of 4
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

type-2 diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, and organ dysfunction. ¶¶ 33-64. In plaintiff’s view, 

the weight of scientific authority dictates that there is “no safe level of trans fat intake.” Id. ¶ 19.

Plaintiff filed this action on May 6, 2015 in this district. Docket 1, Complaint. This case is 

part of a series of actions initiated by plaintiff against food companies who manufacture products 

containing trans fats. See Chacanaca, Guttmann v. Quaker Oats Co., 752 F. Supp. 2d 1111 (N.D. 

Cal. 2010); Peviani, Guttmann v. Hostess Brands, Inc., 750 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1114 (C.D. Cal. 

2010); Guttmann v. Nissin Foods (U.S.A.) Co., Inc., No. C 15-00567 WHA, 2015 WL 4309427 

(N.D. Cal. July 15, 2015); Guttmann v. Ole Mexican Foods, Inc., C. 14–04845 (N.D.Cal.). The 

Complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law 

(“UCL”), California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq; (2) violation of California’s 

False Advertising Law (“FAL”), California Business and Professions Code § 17500 et seq; (3) 

violation of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), California Civil Code § 1750 

et seq.; (4) breach of express warranty; and (5) breach of implied warranty of merchantability. On 

June 29, 2015, defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (b)(6). Docket No. 16. On August 3, 

2015, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a surreply.1 Docket No. 30. The motion to dismiss is 

currently set for hearing on August 28, 2015.

DISCUSSION

La Tapatia argues that plaintiff’s causes of action are preempted by federal law, and should 

therefore be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Defendant also argues that plaintiff’s complaint 

should be dismissed for lack of Article III standing. Specifically, defendant contends that

Guttmann lacks standing because (1) he cannot plausibly allege reliance, (2) he has not suffered an 

 

1

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a surreply is GRANTED.

Case 3:15-cv-02042-SI Document 32 Filed 08/18/15 Page 2 of 4
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

economic or health-related injury, (3) he has not purchased some of the products he challenges,

and (4) he cannot allege a violation of California law for sales occurring outside of California. 

Defendant’s concerns raise a significant question as to whether plaintiff has standing to invoke the 

power of the federal courts, and therefore whether he “is entitled to have the court decide the 

merits of the dispute or of particular issues.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 750-51(1984) (citing 

Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975)).

Similar concerns were raised by the defendant in a different trans fat case brought by 

plaintiff Guttmann in this district. See Guttmann v. Nissin Foods (U.S.A.) Co., Inc., No. C 15-

00567 WHA, 2015 WL 4309427, at *6 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2015). In Nissin, Judge Alsup ordered 

the parties to conduct limited discovery on the question of standing so that the issue could be 

decided on the basis of an evidentiary record, rather than the pleadings. The Court agrees with 

Judge Alsup’s reasoning, and adopts this approach. Defendant’s standing arguments raise a 

jurisdictional question that should be resolved at the outset of the litigation.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: La Tapatia is entitled to propound no 

more than five requests for production of documents and plaintiff shall sit for a one-day deposition 

– all focused on the question of standing. This discovery shall be completed by September 9, 

2015. No fewer than three days prior to his deposition, Guttmann shall sign a sworn declaration 

detailing (1) the approximate dates and quantities of the accused products that he purchased and 

consumed, (2) the extent which he was aware that a food product whose label indicates that it 

contains 0 grams of trans fat, may in fact contain an amount of trans-fat that is less than 0.5 grams,

and (3) whether he has been diagnosed with any of the ailments that he alleges are caused by trans 

fat consumption.

The parties shall file briefs on the question of standing no later than September 23, 2015, 

and the parties shall appear for oral argument on October 9, 2015. The parties’ briefs should also 

Case 3:15-cv-02042-SI Document 32 Filed 08/18/15 Page 3 of 4
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

address Judge Alsup’s August 14, 2015 order in Nissin, dismissing plaintiff’s case for lack of 

standing. See Docket No. 31, Exh. 1. Oral argument on defendant’s motion to dismiss, currently 

set for August 28, 2015, is rescheduled for October 9, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 18, 2015

________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-02042-SI Document 32 Filed 08/18/15 Page 4 of 4