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

KEVIN ANDERSON, on behalf of himself and 

all others similarly situated, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

JAMBA JUICE COMPANY, 

 Defendant. 

Case No.: 12-CV-01213 YGR

ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION OF 

DEFENDANT JAMBA JUICE COMPANY WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff filed this putative class action against Defendant Jamba Juice Company (“Jamba 

Juice”), alleging that it falsely represented that its smoothie kits are “All Natural,” when they are 

not. Plaintiff brings four claims, alleging violations of: (1) California’s Unfair Competition Law, 

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq. (“UCL”); (2) California’s False Advertising Law, Cal. 

Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500 et seq. (“FAL”); (3) the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, 

Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750 et seq. (“CLRA”); and (4) the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 

2301 et seq. (“MMWA”). 

Jamba Juice has filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, (Dkt. No. 

22 (“FAC”)), on two grounds: First, Plaintiff’s Fourth Cause of Action, under the MMWA, fails 

because the “All Natural” statement on the smoothie kits did not establish a written warranty. 

Second, Plaintiff only purchased the smoothie kits in two of the five flavors, and therefore, he lacks 

standing to bring claims based on products he never purchased. 

Having carefully considered the papers submitted and the pleadings in this action, and for 

the reasons set forth below, the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART the Motion to Dismiss, and 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 42-1 Filed: 08/31/12 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:251 Case4:12-cv-01213-YGR Document44 Filed08/25/12 Page1 of 8
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

DISM

I.

that 

also

(“sm

five

Raz

to ch

alleg

proc

and 

Raz

were

Plai

smo

filed

Defe

inclu

proc

II.

the c

base

 

1

 Pur

appr

28, 2

MISSES Plain

BACKG

Jamba Ju

offer fruit s

o offers consu

moothie kits”

Jamba Ju

 flavors: Ma

zmatazz. (Id

harge a price

ges that the s

cessed, synth

citric acid. 

In Decem

zmatazz smo

e “All Natur

ntiff’s decis

oothie kits th

d this action 

fendant’s sm

usion of the 

cessing. 

LEGAL

A motion

complaint. I

ed on the lac

 

rsuant to Fede

ropriate for de

2012. 

ntiff’s Fourth

GROUND 

uice is a lead

moothies, fr

umer at-hom

”). (Id. ¶¶ 2,

uice’s smoot

ango-a-go-g

d. ¶ 12.) By

e premium f

smoothie kit

hetic and/or 

(Id. ¶¶ 12, 2

mber 2011, P

oothie kits. 

ral” when he

ion to buy th

hat he would 

on behalf of

oothie kits, w

unnaturally 

L STANDAR

n to dismiss 

Ileto v. Gloc

ck of a cogni

 

eral Rule of C

ecision withou

h Cause of A

ding health f

resh squeeze

me products,

, 14.) Defen

thie kits are 

go, Strawberr

y labeling its

for its smooth

ts are not “A

non-natural 

21-24.) 

Plaintiff Kev

(Id. ¶ 12.) P

e made his pu

he smoothie 

not have pa

f himself and

which Plaint

processed, s

RD 

under Rule 

ck, Inc., 349 

izable legal t

 

Civil Procedu

ut oral argum

2 

Action WITH

food and bev

d juices, tea

including fr

ndant’s smoo

prominently

ries Wild, C

 smoothie ki

hie kits, whi

All Natural,”

ingredients:

vin Anderson

Plaintiff relie

urchase. Th

kits, and he

aid had the tr

d a class of c

tiff alleges w

synthetic sub

12(b)(6) tes

F.3d 1191, 1

theory or the

ure 78(b) and 

ment. Accordi

H LEAVE TO

verage retaile

as/lattes, and 

rozen novelt

othie kits are

y labeled as “

aribbean Pas

its as “All N

ich cost abou

and contain

: ascorbic ac

n purchased

ed on the rep

he “All Natur

paid a price

rue facts bee

consumers w

were falsely 

bstances, or 

sts the legal s

1199-1200 (

e absence of

Civil Local R

ingly, the Cou

O AMEND.

1

er. (FAC ¶ 2

d snacks. (Id

ty bars and a

e at issue in t

“All Natural

ssion, Orang

Natural,” Jam

ut $4.39 each

n the followin

cid, steviol g

d Jamba Juice

presentation

ral” represen

e premium fo

en disclosed 

who purchas

labeled as “A

substances c

sufficiency o

(9th Cir. 200

f sufficient fa

Rule 7-1(b), th

urt VACATES

2). It has re

d. ¶¶ 2, 13.) 

at-home smo

this case. (I

l,” and are av

ge Dream M

mba Juice has

h. (Id. ¶ 5.)

ng unnatural

glycosides, x

e’s Mango-a

s that the sm

ntation was m

or the Jamba

to him. (Id.

ed one or mo

All Natural”

created via c

of the claims

03). “Dismis

acts alleged 

he Court find

S the hearing s

tail location

Jamba Juice

oothie kits 

Id. ¶ 2.) 

vailable in 

Machine, and 

s been able 

 Plaintiff 

lly 

xanthan gum

a-go-go and 

moothie kits 

material to 

a Juice 

) Plaintiff 

ore of 

” despite the 

chemical 

s alleged in 

ssal can be 

under a 

s this motion 

set for Augus

s

e

m, 

st 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 42-1 Filed: 08/31/12 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:252 Case4:12-cv-01213-YGR Document44 Filed08/25/12 Page2 of 8
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 

cognizable legal theory.” Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 

All allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the 

plaintiff. Johnson v. Lucent Techs., Inc., 653 F.3d 1000, 1010 (9th Cir. 2011). To survive a motion 

to dismiss, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to 

relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007)). 

Review is generally limited to the contents of the complaint and documents attached 

thereto. Allarcom Pay Television. Ltd. v. Gen. Instrument Corp., 69 F.3d 381, 385 (9th Cir. 1995). 

The Court may also consider a matter that is properly the subject of judicial notice without 

converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 

250 F.3d 668, 688-89 (9th Cir. 2001). Under Federal Rule of Evidence 201, a court may take 

judicial notice of a fact not subject to reasonable dispute because it is generally known within the 

trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose 

accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). 

The parties have requested the Court take judicial notice of the First Amended Complaint 

filed in this lawsuit, (Dkt. No. 22); the First Amended Complaint filed in Hairston v. South Beach 

Beverage Co., Inc., CV 12-1429-JFW (C.D. Cal. May 1, 2012), (see Dkt. Nos. 23-2 & 39); an 

exemplar of the Jamba Juice smoothie kits’ packaging at issue in this case; and a guidance 

document from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (“FDA”) website, titled “FDA BasicsDid you know that a store can sell food past the expiration date?” (see Dkt. Nos. 36-1 & 36-2). The 

Court will take judicial notice of the court filings and the FDA Guidance Document. See Reyn’s 

Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (9th Cir. 2006) (courts “may take 

judicial notice of court filings and other matters of public record.”). Additionally, because neither 

party contests the authenticity of the pictures of the Jamba Juice smoothie kits’ packaging, and 

because these food product labels form the basis for Plaintiff’s allegations in the FAC, the Court 

takes judicial notice of these materials. See Wright v. Gen’l Mills, Inc., 2009 WL 3247148 (S.D. 

Cal. Sept. 30, 2009). 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 42-1 Filed: 08/31/12 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:253 Case4:12-cv-01213-YGR Document44 Filed08/25/12 Page3 of 8
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

III.

smo

seq.

the s

crea

defe

Plai

Jam

synt

“All

defi

15 U

the n

cont

inter

lang

Inc.

Litig

 

2

 Th

perio

claim

writt

DISCUS

A. W

A

Plaintiff

oothie kits ar

, which prov

sale of a con

ated a written

ect (i.e., that 

ntiff’s view,

mba Juice bre

thetic and/or

Jamba Ju

l Natural” do

nes a written

any writt

of a cons

material 

is defect

time. 

U.S.C. § 230

Plaintiff

nature of the

tents of the p

rpreting the 

guage “All N

, Case No. C

g., 794 F. Su

 

e Court agree

od of time” ar

m is under the

ten warranty. 

SSION 

WHETHER “ A WRITTEN 

f’s Fourth Ca

re “All Natur

vides a consu

nsumer produ

n warranty th

they were n

, by failing t

eached this w

r non-natural

uice argues t

oes not fit w

n warranty a

ten affirmati

sumer produ

or workman

t free or will 

01(6)(A). 

f maintains th

e material” a

product–that

California C

Natural” can 

C-11-6119 P

upp. 2d 1107

 

es with Plaint

re separate ba

e “defect free

ALL NATUR

WARRANTY

ause of Actio

ral” violates

umer remedy

uct. Accord

hat the ingre

not synthetic,

o provide sm

written warra

l ingredients

that Plaintiff

within the stat

as follows: 

ion of fact o

uct by a supp

nship and aff

meet a spec

hat the langu

and is a writt

t the smooth

Commercial 

create a war

JH, 2012 W

7 (S.D. Cal. 2

 

iff that “defec

ases to establi

” theory, the 

4 

RAL” LANGU

Y UNDER TH

on alleges th

the Magnus

y for breach

ding to the FA

edients in the

, artificial an

moothie kits 

anty (i.e., the

s, and therefo

f’s MMWA 

tute’s definit

r written pro

plier to a buy

ffirms or prom

cified level o

uage “All Na

ten affirmati

ie kits are “d

Code, Plaint

rranty. See P

WL 1497507, 

2011)). As J

ct free” and “

ish a written w

representation

UAGE ON PR

HE MAGNUSO

hat Jamba Ju

son Moss W

h of a written

AC, labeling

e smoothie k

nd/or otherw

that contain

e smoothie k

ore, were no

claim must b

tion of a “wr

omise made 

yer which re

mises that su

of performan

atural” on th

ion of fact or

defect free.”

tiff argues th

Pl’s Opp’n 6

at *2 (N.D. 

Jamba Juice

“specified leve

warranty unde

n does not ne

RODUCT PAC

ON MOSS W

uice’s represe

Warranty Act,

n warranty m

g the smooth

kits were free

wise non-natu

ned only “Al

kits contained

ot defect free

be dismissed

ritten warran

in connectio

lates to the n

uch material

nce over a sp

he smoothie k

r promise as 

”

2

 Relying u

hat courts ha

6-7 (citing V

Cal. Apr. 27

e points out, 

el of perform

er the MMW

eed a tempora

CKAGING CO

WARRANTY A

entations tha

, 15 U.S.C. §

made in conn

hie kits as “A

e of a particu

ural). FAC ¶

l Natural” in

d unnaturall

e). Id. ¶ 65.

d because th

nty.” The M

on with the s

nature of the

l or workman

pecified perio

kits’ labels “

to the qualit

upon court de

ave found tha

Vicuna v. Alex

7, 2012); In 

these cases a

mance over a s

A. Because P

al element to e

ONSTITUTES 

ACT? 

at its 

§§ 2301 et 

nection with 

All Natural” 

ular type of 

¶ 64. In 

ngredients, 

y processed

he phrase 

MMWA 

sale 

e

nship 

od of 

“relates to 

ty and 

ecisions 

at the 

xia Foods, 

re Ferrero 

are 

specified 

Plaintiff’s 

establish a 

,

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 42-1 Filed: 08/31/12 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:254 Case4:12-cv-01213-YGR Document44 Filed08/25/12 Page4 of 8
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 

inapposite because Plaintiff’s warranty claim is under the MMWA, which defines written warranty 

differently than does California state law.3 Jamba Juice argues that the language “All Natural” on 

the smoothie kits’ labels does not constitute a written warranty within the meaning of the MMWA. 

The Court agrees. 

District Courts have held consistently that labeling a product “All Natural” is not a “written 

warranty” under the MMWA. See Astiana v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc., C-11-2910 EMC, 

2012 WL 2990766 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 20, 2012) (claim that food product is “natural” describes product 

but does not give assurance that product is defect free and therefore does not create warranty); 

Littlehale v. Trader Joe’s Co., C-11-6342 PJH, Dkt. No. 48, (N.D. Cal. Jul. 2, 2012) (statements 

“Pure Natural” and “All Natural” are “mere product descriptions,” not “affirmations or promises 

that the products are defect free”); Larsen v. Nonni’s Foods, LLC, C-11-05188 SI, Dkt. No. 41 

(N.D. Cal. Jun. 14, 2012) (“All Natural” and “100% Natural” are not written warranties promising 

that food products are defect free because “this Court is not persuaded that being ‘synthetic’ or 

‘artificial’ is a ‘defect.’”); Hairston v. South Beach Beverage Co., Inc., 2012 WL 1893818 (C.D. 

Cal. May 18, 2012) (representations that beverage was “all natural with vitamins” “are product 

descriptions rather than promises that Lifewater is defect-free or guarantees of specific performance 

levels.”). The Court finds the reasoning in these cases persuasive. 

The statement “All Natural” is a general product description rather than a promise that the 

product is defect free. See Larsen, supra, C-11-05188 SI, Dkt. No. 41 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 14, 2012) 

(rejecting claim that the use of synthetic ingredients in food labeled “all natural” rendered that food 

defective, reasoning the “deliberate use of [synthetic] ingredients does not comport with the plain 

meaning of the word ‘defect.’”). A product description does not constitute a written warranty under 

the MMWA. See Littlehale, supra, C-11-6342 PJH, Dkt. No. 48, (N.D. Cal. Jul. 2, 2012) (“To 

accept plaintiffs’ argument [that the statement “All Natural” promises the product is defect free] 

would be to transform most, if not all, product descriptions into warranties against a defect, and 

 

3

 Plaintiff also cites In re McDonald’s French Fries Litig., 503 F. Supp. 2d 953, 958 (N.D. Ill. 2007), which 

did involve a breach of written warranty claim under the MMWA. That case, however, addressed only 

whether privity of contract is required for a warranty claim under the MMWA. The district court did not 

address whether advertising french fries as safe for consumption by individuals with food allergies created a 

warranty. 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 42-1 Filed: 08/31/12 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:255 Case4:12-cv-01213-YGR Document44 Filed08/25/12 Page5 of 8
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

plain

the l

mea

for b

to th

suff

AT&

inju

lost 

§§ 1

purc

Oran

Raz

Stra

dism

alleg

from

a pla

iden

1657

 

4

 To

and 

ntiffs have n

language “A

aning of the M

Based on

breach of wr

he extent som

B. W

P

Standing

fered an injur

&T Mobility,

ury-in-fact re

money or pr

17204, 17535

Jamba Ju

chasers of sm

nge Dream M

zmatazz smo

awberries Wi

missed for la

ge that he pu

m them. 

The part

aintiff has st

ntical produc

7119, at *6 (

 

establish Art

(3) redressab

not articulate

All Natural” o

MMWA. 

n the foregoi

ritten warran

me other bas

WHETHER P

PURCHASER

g under Artic

ry-in-fact. L

 LLC, 196 C

equirement, s

roperty” as a

5; Cal. Civ. 

uice argues t

moothie kit f

Machine. (F

oothie kits. 

ild, Caribbea

ack of jurisdi

urchased tho

ties recogniz

tanding to br

cts. See Don

(N.D. Cal. M

 

ticle III stand

ility. Lujan, s

ed any limiti

on the smoo

ing analysis,

nty under the

sis may exist

PLAINTIFF H

S OF FLAVO

cle III and th

Lujan v. Defe

Cal. App. 4th

standing und

a result of th

Code § 1780

that Plaintiff

flavors he di

FAC ¶ 28.) P

(Id. ¶ 12.) T

an Passion, a

iction and fo

ose three smo

ze that distric

ring claims o

nohue v. App

May 10, 2012

 

ing, a plaintif

supra, 504 U

6 

ng principle

thie kits’ lab

, the Court G

e Magnuson 

t for this clai

HAS STANDIN

ORS PLAINTI

he UCL, FAL

fenders of Wi

h 1545, 1554

der the UCL,

he defendant

0(a). 

f does not ha

d not buy: S

Plaintiff only

Thus, Jamba

and Orange D

or failure to s

oothie kit pro

ct courts in t

on behalf of 

ple, Inc., ― F

2) (noting di

ff must satisfy

U.S. at 560-61

e to convince

bels did not c

GRANTS the 

Moss Warra

im. 

NG TO BRING

IFF DID NOT

L, and CLRA

Wildlife, 504 U

4-56 (Cal. Ct

, FAL and C

’s alleged co

ave standing

Strawberries 

y alleges tha

a Juice argue

Dream Mac

state a claim

oducts, let a

this circuit h

consumers w

F. Supp. 2d 

ivergence an

y three eleme

. 

e the court ot

create a writ

motion to di

anty Act WI

G CLAIMS O

T BUY? 

A requires th

U.S. 555, 56

t. App. 2011

CLRA, requi

onduct. See

g to bring cla

Wild, Carib

at he purchas

es that Plaint

hine smooth

m because Pla

alone that he 

have diverged

who purchas

―, 11-CV-0

nd collecting

ents: (1) injury

therwise.”).

tten warranty

ismiss Plain

ITH LEAVE T

ON BEHALF O

hat a plaintif

60 (1992); Bo

1).4 In additi

res that a pla

Cal. Bus. &

aims on beha

bbean Passion

sed Mango-a

tiff’s claims 

hie kits shoul

aintiff has fa

suffered any

d on the issu

sed similar, b

05337 RMW

g cases). Pla

y-in-fact; (2) 

 Therefore,

y within the 

ntiff’s claim 

TO AMEND

OF 

ff has 

ower v. 

ion to the 

aintiff “has 

& Prof. Code 

alf of 

n, and 

a-go-go and 

as to the 

ld be 

ailed to 

y injury 

ue of whethe

but not 

W, 2012 WL 

aintiff argues

causation; 

r 

s

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 42-1 Filed: 08/31/12 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:256 Case4:12-cv-01213-YGR Document44 Filed08/25/12 Page6 of 8
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 

that he has standing to represent a class of consumers with regard to a product he did not purchase 

so long as his claims are based on the “‘same core factual allegations and causes of action.’” Pl’s 

Opp’n 10.5

 Defendant argues that this case is more similar to the Johns v. Bayer Corp., No. 09-

1935 DMS, 2010 WL 476688 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2010) (purchaser of One A Day Men’s Health 

Formula vitamin product lacks standing to sue on behalf of purchasers of One A Day Men’s 50+ 

Advantage vitamin product), which held that a plaintiff “cannot expand the scope of his claims to 

include a product he did not purchase.” 

The “critical inquiry [in these cases] seems to be whether there is sufficient similarity 

between the products purchased and not purchased.” Astiana, supra, C-11-2910 EMC, 2012 WL 

2990766, at *11 (different flavors of ice cream carried under different brand names, Edy’s/Dreyer’s 

and Haagen-Daz, sufficiently similar where same wrongful conduct applied).6

 If there is a 

sufficient similarity between the products, any concerns regarding material differences in the 

products can be addressed at the class certification stage. Id.; Donohue, supra, 2012 WL 1657119, 

at *6 (allowing plaintiff to represent a class of persons who purchased different but similar products 

reasoning that “questions of whether common issues predominate and whether plaintiff can 

adequately represent absent class members, [are] issues that are better resolved at the class 

certification stage.”). 

Here, Plaintiff is challenging the “All Natural” labeling of Jamba Juice at-home smoothie 

kits, which comes in a variety of flavors―Mango-a-go-go, Strawberries Wild, Caribbean Passion, 

Orange Dream Machine, and Razzmatazz. There is sufficient similarity between the products 

 

5

 Plaintiff cites Wang v. OCZ Techn. Group, Inc., 276 F.R.D. 618, 632-33 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (denying motion 

to strike claims with respect to computer models plaintiffs did not purchase; more appropriate to resolve 

issue on Rule 12(b) motion or on class certification motion); Carideo v. Dell Inc., 706 F. Supp. 2d 1122, 

1134 (W.D. Wash. 2010) (standing under Washington state law for products not purchased where causes of 

action and factual allegations were the same); and Hewlett-Packard v. Super. Ct., 167 Cal. App. 4th 87, 89-

91 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (denying writ to vacate order certifying class of computer purchasers for lack of 

community of interest where class included models of computers plaintiff had not purchased). 

6 Compare with Carrea v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc., C-10-01044 JSW, 2011 WL 159380 (N.D. Cal. 

Jan. 10, 2011), aff’d, 2012 WL 1131526 (9th Cir. Apr. 5, 2012) (plaintiff had standing to bring claim as to 

Defendant’s Original Vanilla Drumstick ice cream product he purchased but not as to the Dibs products 

because he did not allege that he purchased Dibs or otherwise suffered any injury or lost money or property 

with respect to those products); Larsen, supra, C-11-05188 SI, Dkt. No. 41 (purchasers of cookies, juices, 

cinnamon rolls, and biscuits did not have standing to bring claims as to crescent rolls they did not purchase). 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 42-1 Filed: 08/31/12 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:257 Case4:12-cv-01213-YGR Document44 Filed08/25/12 Page7 of 8
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

purc

(Str

sam

are l

gum

brin

subj

stan

IV.

War

or (i

Dat

chased (Man

awberries W

me alleged mi

labeled “All

m, ascorbic a

ng claims on 

ject matter ju

Based on

nding. 

CONCL

For the r

Plaintiff

rranty Act, 1

No later 

ii) a notice th

Within 2

IT IS SO 

e: August 2

ngo-a-go-go 

Wild, Caribbe

isrepresentat

 Natural,” an

cid and stev

behalf of pu

urisdiction o

n the foregoi

LUSION 

reasons set fo

f’s Fourth Ca

15 U.S.C. §§

than Septem

hat he intend

21 days of th

ORDERED.

24, 2012 

and Razzma

ean Passion, 

tion was on 

nd all smoot

iol gycoside

urchasers of 

over such cla

ing analysis,

forth above, t

ause of Actio

 2301 et seq

mber 14, 20

ds to proceed

he filing of th

8 

atazz smooth

and Orange

all of the sm

thie kits cont

es). Therefor

smoothie kit

aims. 

, the Court D

the Court GR

on for breach

q., is DISMIS

12, Plaintiff

d on the Firs

he above, De

 __

hie kits) and 

e Dream Mac

moothie kit re

tain allegedl

re, the Court

t flavors he 

DENIES the M

RANTS IN PA

h of warrant

SED WITH L

f shall file eit

st Amended 

efendant sha

__________

 YVON

UNITED ST

the product

chine smoot

egardless of

ly non-natur

t finds that P

did not buy,

Motion to Di

ART the Mot

ty under the 

LEAVE TO A

ther (i) a sec

Complaint. 

all file a resp

___________

NNE GONZAL

TATES DISTR

s not purcha

hie kits) bec

f flavor; all sm

al ingredient

Plaintiff has 

 and the Cou

ismiss for la

tion to Dism

Magnuson M

AMEND. 

cond amende

ponse. 

__________

LEZ ROGER

RICT COURT

ased

cause the 

moothie kits

ts (xanthan 

standing, to 

urt has 

ack of 

miss. 

Moss 

ed complaint

__________

S

T JUDGE

s

t

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 42-1 Filed: 08/31/12 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:258 Case4:12-cv-01213-YGR Document44 Filed08/25/12 Page8 of 8