N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M ELANIE B A RB ER ; R OB ER T M ALONE; ESTHER M ALONE; R
. GR AC E R ODRIGUEZ, on be ha lf of the m se lve s and a ll othe rs sim ila rly situa te d, Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla nts,
v. NESTLE USA, INC ., a De la ware C orporation; NESTLE PUR INA PETC A RE C O ., A M i ssouri C orporation,

De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s. No. 16-55041 D.C . No. C V 15-1364 C JC
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia C orm a c J. C arne y , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 7, 2017 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : TASHIM A , W . FLETC HER , and B ER ZON, C irc u it Judge s. Pla intiffs-Appe l la

nts M e la nie B arbe r, R obe rt a

nd Esthe r M a lone , and R
.



# FIL ED JUL 10 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.Gra c e R odrigue z (“ Pla i ntiffs” ) a ppe a l the dismissa l of the ir puta tive c la ss a c tion la wsuit a g a inst De fe nda

nts-Appe lle e s Ne stlé USA, Inc . a nd Ne stlé Purina Pe tC are C o. (c o lle c tive ly , “ Ne s tlé ” ). 1 Ne s tlé is a

m a rke te r and distributor of
c anne d a n d pa c ka g e d se a food tha

t sourc e s som e of its produc t s from Tha ila nd. The B ure a

u of Inte rnationa l La

b or Affa irs of theUnite d State s De pa rtm e nt of La bor re c ogniz e s tha

t fish a nd shrim p produc t s e xporte d from Tha ila nd m ay be the
re sult of forc e d la

bor. The re fore , Ne stlé ’ s supply c ha i n m ay

inc lude forc e d la

bor, but thec om

pa ny doe s not disc l ose this on its la be ls. Pla intiffs a

rgue tha t by not la be ling its products, Ne stlé m isle d purc ha se rs
and the re by

viola t e d C a lifornia ’ s c o nsum e r prote c tion la ws. Spe c i fic a lly , Pla intiffs bring suit unde

r (1) C a lifornia

C ivil C ode §§ 1750, e t se q. , the C onsum e rs Le ga l R e m e die s Ac t (“ C LR

A” ); (2) C a lifornia ’ s B usine ss & Profe ssions C ode §§ 17200,
e t se q. , the Unfa ir C om

pe tition La

w (“ UC L” ); a

nd (3) C a lifornia ’ s B usine ss & Profe ssions C ode §§ 17500, e t se q. , the Fa lse Adve rtising La w (“ FAL” ). The distric t c ourt dismisse d a ll of Pla intiffs’ c la im s . W e re vie wde novo, Hinojos v . K

ohl’s C orp. , 718 F.3d 1098, 1103 (9th C ir. 2013), a nd a ffirm
.

1 This a

ppe a l is oneof se ve n re late d c a s e s tha t we re c onsolida

te d for ora l argum e nt. For a

m ore fulsom e disc ussion of the issue s in the se a

ppe a ls, ple a se re fe r to the publishe d opinion in Hodsdon v

. Mars, Inc
. , __ F.3d __, No. 16-15444, 2018 W L 2473486 (9th C ir. Jun. 4, 2018) 21. Pla intiffs a rgue tha t Ne stlé ha d a

duty to disc lose , on its la

be ls, the
e xiste nc e of forc e d la

bor in its supply

c ha in. Pla i ntiffs fa ile d to a lle g e tha t the
e xiste nc e of forc e d la

bor in thesupply

c h a in a ffe c ts these a food produc ts’ c e ntra l func tion. Se eHodsdon , 2018 WL 2473486 a t *6. The re fore , Ne stle wa s unde r no duty to disc lose
. Id
. 2 2. “ [A] lthough a

c la im m ay be sta te d unde r the C LR

A in te rm s
c onstituting fra

udule nt om issions, to be

a c tiona ble the om ission m

ust be c o ntra

ry to a re pre se ntation a c tua l ly m a de by the de fe nda

nt, or an omission of a fact the de fe ndant w as obliged

to disc lose .” Daughe rty

v . Am. Honda Motor C

o. , 51 C a l. R ptr. 3d 118, 126 (C t. App. 2006) (e m pha sis a dde d). The re fore , Ne stlé did not viola te the C LR

A. 3. The UC L prohibits “ any unla w ful, unfa ir or fra

udule nt busine ss a c t

or pra c tic e .” C a l. B us. & Prof. C o de § 17200. “ B e c a u se B usine ss & Profe ssions C ode § 17200 is writte

n in the disjunc tive , it e sta blishe s thre e va

rie tie s of unfa ir
c om pe tition—a c ts or pra c tic e s whic h a re unla wful, or unfa ir, or fra

udule nt.” C

e lTe c h C ommc ’ns, Inc . v . L.A. C

e llular Te l. C

o. , 973 P.2d 527, 540 (C a l. 1999)

2 W e a s sum e for the purpose s of this a ppe a l tha t the e xiste nc e of forc e d la bor in thesupply

c ha i n is m ate ria l to c onsum e rs. W e do not re a c h whe t he r Pla i ntiffs a lle ge d tha

t Ne stlé ha d the re quisite e xc lusivity of knowle dge ove r the c onsum e r. 3(c ita

tions a nd inte rna l quota

tion m a rks omitte d). Pla intiffs c la i m tha t Ne s tlé is lia ble unde r a ll thre e of the va rie tie s. Ne stlé is not lia

ble unde r the unla

wful prong be c a

use Pla intiffs did not sta

te
a c la im unde r the C LR

A. Like wise , Pla i ntiffs c annot sta te a c la im unde r the fraudule nt prong be c a

use Ne s tlé did not ha

ve a duty to disc l ose the forc e d la

bor. Se eBe rry man v . Me rit Prop. Mgmt., Inc
. , 62 C a l. R ptr. 3d 177, 188 (C t. App. 2007). Fina lly , Pla intiffs c annot sta te a c l a im unde r the unfa ir prong pursua nt to
e ithe r of the C a lifornia

te sts. Se eHodsdon , 2018 WL 2473486 a t *7–8. There fore , Pla i ntiffs did not sta

te a UC L c l a im
. 4. For the purpose s of the FAL, whe the r an a dve rtise m e nt is misle a ding is de te rm ine d by

a sking whe the r a

re a sona ble c onsum e r would like l y be de c e ive d. Se e D av is v . HSBC

Bank N e v ., N .A. , 691 F.3d 1152, 1161–62 (9th C ir. 2012). Pla i ntiffs’ FAL c la im s fa il be c a use “ a fa i lure to disc lose a

fa c t one ha s no
a ffirm ative duty

to disc lose is [not] ‘ like l y to de c e ive ’ any one . ” Se eDaughe rty , 51 C a l. R ptr. 3d a t 128. 3

• ! •

3 The distric t c ourt dismisse d Pla intiffs’ c l a im s on theground tha t the C a lifornia Tran spa re nc y in Supply

C ha ins Ac t of 2010, C a l. C i v. C o de § 1714.43, c re ate d a sa fe ha

rbor tha t ba rs Pla intiffs’ s la

wsuit. B e c a

use we a ffirm

the distric t c ourt on a nothe r ground, we do not re a c h this issue of whe the r the sa fe ha

rbor doc trine a pplie s . 4The judgm e nt of thedistric t c ourt is

AFFIRM E D. 4

4 Pla intiffs ha

ve an outsta

nding m otion to c e rtify

a que stion to the C a lifornia Supre m e C o urt; howe ve r, the que stion is not outc om e de te rm inative
. Se e C a l. R
. of C ourt 8.548(a)(1) (“ The [C a lifornia ] Supre m e C ourt m ay de c ide a que stion of C a lifornia

la wif . . . [t] he de c ision c ould de te rm ine the outc om e of a m atte r pe nding in the

re que s ting c ourt.” ). W e the re fore de ny the m otion to c e rtify
. 5