Case 3:15-cv-01963-MMC Document 26 Filed 07/17/15 Page 1 of 40
`
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`Carmine R. Zarlenga (D.C. Bar No. 386244)
`czarlenga@mayerbrown.com
`1999 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20006-1101
`Telephone: (202) 263-3000
`Facsimile: (202) 263-3300
`
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`Dale J. Giali (Cal. Bar No. 150382)
`dgiali@mayerbrown.com
`Andrea M. Weiss (Cal. Bar No. 252429)
`aweiss@mayerbrown.com
`350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503
`Telephone: (213) 229-9500
`Facsimile: (213) 625-0248
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`NESTLÉ USA, INC.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`TROY BACKUS, on behalf of himself and all
`others similarly situated,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`NESTLÉ USA INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 3:15-cv-01963-MMC
`
`DEFENDANT NESTLÉ USA, INC.’S
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED
`COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF
`POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; AND
`PREEMPTION CHART (APPENDIX 1)
`IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`[Request for Judicial Notice and [Proposed]
`Order filed concurrently herewith]
`
`August 21, 2015
`Date:
`9:00 a.m.
`Time:
`Location: Courtroom 7
`
`Action Filed: April 30, 2015
`
`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
`
`716862434.4
`
`NESTLÉ USA INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS FAC; CASE NO. 15-CV-01963-MMC
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-01963-MMC Document 26 Filed 07/17/15 Page 2 of 40
`
`TO PLAINTIFF AND HIS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on August 21, 2015, at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as
`
`this may be heard, in Courtroom 7 of this Court, located at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA
`
`94102, before the Honorable Maxine M. Chesney, defendant Nestlé USA, Inc. (“NUSA”) will and
`
`hereby does move the Court for an order dismissing the amended complaint (“FAC”) and each claim
`
`therein filed by plaintiff Troy Backus.
`
`This motion is filed concurrently with NUSA’s request for judicial notice and NUSA’s motion to
`
`strike portions of the FAC, and is made pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 9(b), 12(b)(1)
`
`and 12(b)(6), based on the following grounds:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`The doctrine of conflict preemption bars the first, second, and third causes of action;
`
`The safe harbor doctrine precludes the first, second, and third causes of action;
`
`The doctrine of primary jurisdiction bars the first, second, and third causes of action;
`
`Plaintiff’s fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth causes of action are expressly
`
`preempted by the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. § 301, et seq.;
`
`5.
`
`The FAC fails to allege facts demonstrating that plaintiff suffered a cognizable injury in
`
`fact necessary to establish Article III standing as to all causes of action;
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff does not plausibly allege that he relied upon or was deceived by the alleged “0g
`
`Trans Fat” statement on NUSA’s Coffee-mate product labels and, therefore, has failed to state a claim as
`
`to the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth causes of action for breach of express warranty and
`
`for violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.
`
`(“UCL”), False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500, et seq. (“FAL”), and Consumers
`
`Legal Remedies Act, Cal Civ. Code §§§ 1750, et seq. (“CLRA”);
`
`7.
`
`For the same reason, plaintiff has not established standing to bring claims under the UCL,
`
`FAL, and CLRA as alleged in the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth causes of action;
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue any claims relating to products he never purchased;
`
`Plaintiff’s claims brought pursuant to the UCL, FAL, and CLRA, as alleged in the fourth,
`
`fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth causes of action, fail on the independent ground that plaintiff has not
`
`pled those claims with particularity, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b);
`
`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
`
`1
`NESTLÉ USA INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS FAC; CASE NO. 15-CV-01963-MMC
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-01963-MMC Document 26 Filed 07/17/15 Page 3 of 40
`
`10.
`
`The third cause of action fails as a matter of law because plaintiff has not alleged facts
`
`supporting the conclusion that the products were unfit for their ordinary purpose;
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff cannot assert California-law claims on behalf of out-of-state individuals for
`
`conduct occurring outside of California; and
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff cannot assert claims on behalf of consumers who purchased products outside of
`
`the limitations period applicable to each claim for relief, as plaintiff has failed to assert equitable tolling
`
`with sufficient particularity as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).
`
`Consequently, the FAC should be dismissed in its entirety.
`
`This motion is based on this Notice, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the attached
`
`Appendix 1, the concurrently-filed Request for Judicial Notice, the Declaration of Rena Kashmere (Dkt.
`
`#13-1), all of the documents in the record, and such argument as may be presented during the hearing on
`
`this motion.
`
`Dated: July 17, 2015
`
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`Carmine R. Zarlenga
`Dale J. Giali
`Andrea M. Weiss
`
`By: /s/ Dale J. Giali
`Dale J. Giali
`Attorneys for Defendant
`NESTLÉ USA, INC.
`
`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
`
`– 2 –
`NESTLÉ USA INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS FAC; CASE NO. 15-CV-01963-MMC
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-01963-MMC Document 26 Filed 07/17/15 Page 4 of 40
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`
`1.
`
`Are the first, second, and third causes of action barred by the doctrine of conflict preemption
`
`because plaintiff is attempting to bar the use of partially-hydrogenated oil (“PHO”), which the Food and
`
`Drug Administration (“FDA”) has expressly permitted for all food through at least June 18, 2018, and
`
`may permit after that by application?
`
`2.
`
`For similar reasons, are the first, second, and third causes of action barred by the safe harbor
`
`doctrine because this Court may not override FDA’s determination that PHO may continue to be used in all
`
`food products through at least June 18, 2018?
`
`3.
`
`Are the first, second, and third causes of action barred by the primary jurisdiction doctrine
`
`because FDA is, or shortly will be, in the process of considering applications for the use of PHO in food after
`
`June 18, 2018; in other words, engaged in rulemaking?
`
`4.
`
`Are plaintiff’s state-law claims in the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth causes of
`
`action expressly preempted by section 343-1 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C.
`
`§ 301, et seq. (“FDCA”), which mandates that—if the statement appears on Coffee-mate products—it
`
`appears as “0g Trans Fat”?
`
`5.
`
`Has plaintiff alleged facts demonstrating that he suffered a cognizable injury in fact
`
`necessary to establish Article III standing?
`
`6.
`
`With respect to the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth causes of action, has
`
`plaintiff plausibly alleged that he relied upon or was deceived by the “0g Trans Fat” statement on Coffee-
`
`mate product labels?
`
`7.
`
`Has plaintiff established standing to bring claims under California’s Unfair Competition
`
`Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq. (“UCL”), False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
`
`§§ 17500, et seq. (“FAL”), and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal Civ. Code §§§ 1750, et seq.
`
`(“CLRA”), as alleged in the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth causes of action?
`
`8.
`
`Does plaintiff have standing to pursue claims relating to Coffee-mate products that he never
`
`purchased?
`
`9.
`
`Has plaintiff pled claims under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA, as alleged in the fourth, fifth,
`
`sixth, seventh, and eighth causes of action, with sufficient particularity, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`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
`
`1
`NESTLÉ USA INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS FAC; CASE NO. 15-CV-01963-MMC
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-01963-MMC Document 26 Filed 07/17/15 Page 5 of 40
`
`9(b)?
`
`10.
`
`Has plaintiff adequately alleged facts that support the conclusion that Coffee-mate products
`
`were unfit for their ordinary purpose, as is required for a the claim of breach of implied warranty alleged in
`
`the third cause of action?
`
`11.
`
`Has plaintiff alleged a sufficient nexus between California and non-California purchases
`
`and purchasers so as to allow California law to apply to non-California transactions?
`
`12.
`
`Has plaintiff alleged equitable tolling with the particularity required by Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`9(b), so as to be able to pursue claims on behalf of consumers who purchased products outside of the
`
`limitations period applicable to each claim for relief?
`
`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
`
`– 2 –
`NESTLÉ USA INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS FAC; CASE NO. 15-CV-01963-MMC
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-01963-MMC Document 26 Filed 07/17/15 Page 6 of 40
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES .......................................................................1
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................1
`SUMMARY OF CLAIMS.....................................................................................................................3
`ARGUMENT.........................................................................................................................................4
`I.
`THE FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD BE
`DISMISSED ..............................................................................................................................4
`A.
`The Claims Are Subject To Conflict Preemption..........................................................4
`1.
`FDA Has Exclusive Authority To Regulate Food Additives.............................4
`2.
`FDA Explicitly Permits The Use Of PHOs Until June 18, 2018.......................5
`3.
`The Claims Conflict With FDA’s Determination & Are Therefore
`Preempted ..........................................................................................................6
`The Doctrine of Safe Harbor Precludes The Claims .....................................................9
`B.
`The Claims Are Also Barred By The Primary Jurisdiction Doctrine ..........................10
`C.
`THE REMAINING CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD ALSO BE DISMISSED ..................11
`A.
`Express Preemption Bars Claims Based On “0g Trans Fat” Labeling
`Statements....................................................................................................................11
`1.
`The “0g Trans Fat” Statement Is Mandated Under the FDCA ........................12
`2.
`The NLEA’s Express Preemption Provision Specifically Covers
`The Regulations Permitting The “0g Trans Fat” Statement ............................14
`The Claims Attempt To Impose Non-Identical Requirements
`Under California Law And Are Therefore Expressly Preempted....................14
`Plaintiff Cannot Avoid Preemption By Recasting His Claims As
`Imposing Requirements That Are Identical To Federal Labeling
`Law ..................................................................................................................16
`Plaintiff Has Not Complied With Rule 9(b) ................................................................17
`B.
`PLAINTIFF LACKS STANDING TO BRING ANY OF THE CLAIMS .............................18
`A.
`Plaintiff Lacks Standing To Bring The “Personal Injury” Claims ..............................19
`B.
`Plaintiff Lacks Standing To Bring Labeling Claims Because The FAC
`Does Not Contain Plausible Allegations Of Reliance Or Deception...........................20
`No Plausible Injury As A Result Of The “0g Trans Fat” Statement Is
`Alleged.........................................................................................................................22
`Plaintiff Lacks Standing To Assert Claims On Non-Purchased Products ...................23
`D.
`THE CLASS ALLEGATIONS ARE DEFICIENT.................................................................24
`A.
`Plaintiff May Not Sue For Non-California Sales.........................................................24
`B.
`Plaintiff Cannot Bring Claims On Behalf Of Consumers Who Purchased
`The Products Outside The Applicable Limitations Periods.........................................24
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`C.
`
`-i-
`NESTLÉ USA INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS FAC; CASE NO. 15-CV-01963-MMC
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-01963-MMC Document 26 Filed 07/17/15 Page 7 of 40
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`V.
`
`IN SUM, THE CLAIMS SHOULD BE DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO
`AMEND...................................................................................................................................25
`
`-ii-
`NESTLÉ USA INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS; CASE NO. 15-CV-01963-MMC
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-01963-MMC Document 26 Filed 07/17/15 Page 8 of 40
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`
`In re Actimmune Mktg. Litig.,
`2010 WL 3463491 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2010) .................................................................................23
`
`Adams v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.,
`1995 WL 17019989 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 22, 1995) ..............................................................................11
`
`Albrecht v. Lund,
`845 F.2d 193 (9th Cir. 1988) ..........................................................................................................25
`
`Arizona v. United States,
`132 S. Ct. 2492 (2012)......................................................................................................................9
`
`Aron v. U-Haul Co. of Cal.,
`143 Cal. App. 4th 796 (2006) ...........................................................................................................9
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009)..................................................................................................................19, 21
`
`Astiana v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc.,
`783 F.3d 753 (9th Cir. 2015) ..........................................................................................................11
`
`Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007)........................................................................................................................25
`
`Bishop v. 7-Eleven, Inc.,
`2013 WL 4014174 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2013) .................................................................................17
`
`Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs’ Legal Comm.,
`531 U.S. 341 (2001)................................................................................................................8, 9, 11
`
`Carrea v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc.,
`2011 WL 159380 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011)...................................................................................14
`
`Carrea v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc.,
`475 F. App’x 113 (9th Cir. 2012) ...................................................................................2, 13, 14, 15
`
`In re Celexa and Lexapro Mktg. and Sales Practices Litig.,
`2014 WL 866571 (D. Mass. Mar. 5, 2014).........................................................................................9
`
`Chacanaca v. Quaker Oats Co.,
`752 F. Supp. 2d 1111 (N.D. Cal. 2010) ........................................................................................2, 14
`
`-iii-
`NESTLÉ USA INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS FAC; CASE NO. 15-CV-01963-MMC
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-01963-MMC Document 26 Filed 07/17/15 Page 9 of 40
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Churchill Vill., L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec. Co.,
`169 F. Supp. 2d 1119 (N.D. Cal. 2000) ............................................................................................24
`
`Clark v. Time Warner Cable,
`523 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2008) ..........................................................................................................10
`
`Conerly v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.,
`623 F.2d 117 (9th Cir. 1980) ............................................................................................................25
`
`Davis v. HSBC Bank Nev., N.A.,
`691 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2012) ..........................................................................................................10
`
`Ebner v. Fresh, Inc.,
`2013 WL 9760035 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2013) ...................................................................................9
`
`Eclectic Properties E., LLC v. Marcus & Millichap Co.,
`751 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2014) ......................................................................................................20, 21
`
`Faulkner v. ADT Sec. Servs., Inc.,
`706 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 2013) ..........................................................................................................20
`
`Fid. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. de la Cuesta,
`458 U.S. 141 (1982)............................................................................................................................8
`
`Fiedler v. Clark,
`714 F.2d 77 (9th Cir. 1983) ..............................................................................................................11
`
`Figy v. Frito-Lay North America, Inc.,
`67 F. Supp. 3d 1075 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ..............................................................................................22
`
`Fraker v. KFC Corp.,
`2007 WL 1296571 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2007).....................................................................................9
`
`Frenzel v. AliphCom,
`--- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2014 WL 7387150 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2014) ...................................................17
`
`Geier v. Am. Honda Motor Co.,
`529 U.S. 861 (2000)....................................................................................................................6, 7, 8
`
`Gorenstein v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc.,
`2010 WL 10838229 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2010) .................................................................................17
`
`Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP,
`584 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2009) ..........................................................................................................12
`
`-iv-
`NESTLÉ USA INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS; CASE NO. 15-CV-01963-MMC
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-01963-MMC Document 26 Filed 07/17/15 Page 10 of 40
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Gustavson v. Wrigley Sales Co.,
`2014 WL 60197 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2014).........................................................................................17
`
`Heckler v. Chaney,
`470 U.S. 821 (1985)............................................................................................................................9
`
`Henderson v. Gruma Corp.,
`2011 WL 1362188 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2011) ..............................................................................2, 14
`
`Insolia v. Philip Morris Inc.,
`128 F. Supp. 2d 1220 (W.D. Wis. 2000) ............................................................................................7
`
`Int’l Paper Co. v. Ouellette,
`479 U.S. 481 (1987)........................................................................................................................1, 7
`
`Kane v. Chobani, Inc.,
`2013 WL 5289253 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 19, 2013) ..................................................................................22
`
`Kearns v. Ford Motor Co.,
`567 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) ..........................................................................................................17
`
`Koronthaly v. L’Oreal USA, Inc.,
`2008 WL 2938045 (D.N.J. July 29, 2008)........................................................................................19
`
`Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court,
`51 Cal. 4th 310 (2011) ..........................................................................................................19, 21, 23
`
`Larsen v. Trader Joe’s Co.,
`2012 WL 5458396 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2012)..................................................................................23
`
`Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Publ’g,
`512 F.3d 522 (9th Cir. 2008) ............................................................................................................25
`
`Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife,
`504 U.S. 555 (1992)..............................................................................................................18, 19, 23
`
`Maple v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,
`2013 WL 5885389 (E.D. Wash. Nov. 1, 2013) ................................................................................22
`
`Maryland v. Louisiana,
`451 U.S. 725 (1981)............................................................................................................................6
`
`Maxwell v. Unilever U.S., Inc.,
`2013 WL 1435232 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2013) ....................................................................................18
`
`-v-
`NESTLÉ USA INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS; CASE NO. 15-CV-01963-MMC
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-01963-MMC Document 26 Filed 07/17/15 Page 11 of 40
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`McHenry v. Renne,
`84 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 1996) ............................................................................................................20
`
`Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum L.P.,
`45 Cal. 4th 634 (2009) ......................................................................................................................19
`
`Pelayo v. Nestlé USA, Inc.,
`989 F. Supp. 2d 973 (C.D. Cal. 2013) ..............................................................................................22
`
`Peviani v. Hostess Brands, Inc.,
`750 F. Supp. 2d 1111 (C.D. Cal. 2010) ..............................................................................2, 5, 14, 16
`
`PhotoMedex,Inc. v. Irwin,
`601 F.3d 919 (9th Cir. 2010) ..............................................................................................................9
`
`POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co.,
`134 S. Ct. 2228 (2014)......................................................................................................................12
`
`Red v. The Kroger Co.,
`2010 WL 4262037 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2010) .........................................................................2, 14, 16
`
`Robinson v. Saxe,
`551 F. App'x 337 (9th Cir. 2013)......................................................................................................20
`
`Rooney v. Cumberland Packing Corp.,
`2012 WL 1512106 (S.D. Cal. April 16, 2012)..................................................................................22
`
`Rosen v. Unilever U.S., Inc.,
`2010 WL 4807100 (N.D. Cal. May 3, 2010)....................................................................................22
`
`Rutledge v. Boston Woven Hose & Rubber Co.,
`576 F.2d 248 (9th Cir. 1978) ............................................................................................................24
`
`Sanders v. Apple, Inc.,
`672 F. Supp. 2d 978 (N.D. Cal. 2009) ..............................................................................................22
`
`Simpson v. California Pizza Kitchen, Inc.,
`989 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (S.D. Cal. 2013).............................................................................................19
`
`Sullivan v. Oracle Corp.,
`51 Cal. 4th 1191 (2011) ....................................................................................................................24
`
`Swearingen v. Yucatan Foods, L.P.,
`59 F. Supp. 3d 961, 964 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ........................................................................................10
`
`-vi-
`NESTLÉ USA INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS; CASE NO. 15-CV-01963-MMC
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-01963-MMC Document 26 Filed 07/17/15 Page 12 of 40
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Syntek Semiconductor Co. v. Microchip Tech. Inc.,
`307 F.3d 775 (9th Cir. 2002) ............................................................................................................10
`
`Thomas v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,
`2013 WL 1435292 (N.D. Cal. April 9, 2013).............................................................................17, 18
`
`Turek v. Gen. Mills,
`662 F.3d 423 (7th Cir. 2011) ........................................................................................................4, 12
`
`United States v. Estate of Romani,
`523 U.S. 517 (1998)..........................................................................................................................17
`
`Valle-Ortiz v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
`385 F. Supp. 2d 126 (D.P.R. 2005).....................................................................................................7
`
`Warth v. Seldin,
`422 U.S. 490 (1975)..........................................................................................................................23
`
`Williamson v. Reinalt-Thomas Corp.,
`2012 WL 1438812 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2012) ..................................................................................18
`
`Wilson v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc.,
`961 F. Supp. 2d 1134 (N.D. Cal. 2013) ......................................................................................23, 24
`
`Yumul v. Smart Balance, Inc.,
`2011 WL 1045555 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2011)..................................................................................16
`
`Zixiang Li v. Kerry,
`710 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2013) ............................................................................................................20
`
`STATUTES
`
`21 U.S.C. § 301............................................................................................................................... passim
`
`21 U.S.C. § 321(s).....................................................................................................................................5
`
`21 U.S.C. § 337...............................................................................................................................8, 9, 11
`
`21 U.S.C. § 343-1 .......................................................................................................2, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17
`
`21 U.S.C. § 343(a) ..........................................................................................................13, 14, 15, 16, 17
`
`21 U.S.C. § 348.........................................................................................................................................5
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17208 .............................................................................................................24
`
`-vii-
`NESTLÉ USA INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS; CASE NO. 15-CV-01963-MMC
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-01963-MMC Document 26 Filed 07/17/15 Page 13 of 40
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1783.............................................................................................................................24
`
`Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 338 .....................................................................................................................24
`
`Cal. Com. Code § 2725...........................................................................................................................24
`
`Pub. L. 75-717, 52 Stat. 1040, 1047 .......................................................................................................17
`
`Pub. L. 101-535, 104 Stat. 2352 .......................................................................................5, 11, 12, 16, 17
`
`Regulations
`
`21 C.F.R. § 1.1....................................................................................................................................5, 11
`
`21 C.F.R. § 1.21......................................................................................................................................17
`
`21 C.F.R. § 101...................................................................................................................................5, 11
`
`21 C.F.R. § 100.1....................................................................................................................................11
`
`21 C.F.R. § 101.9........................................................................................................................12, 13, 14
`
`21 C.F.R. § 101.13................................................................................................................13, 14, 15, 16
`
`OTHER
`
`58 Fed. Reg. 44020 ................................................................................................................................13
`
`58 Fed. Reg. 44025 .................................................................................................................................13
`
`64 Fed. Reg. 62746 .................................................................................................................................13
`
`64 Fed. Reg. 62755 .................................................................................................................................13
`
`80 Fed. Reg. 34650 .......................................................................................................................7, 10, 12
`
`80 Fed. Reg. 34650-01..........................................................................................................................4, 5
`
`80 Fed. Reg. at 34668-69..........................................................................................................................6
`
`U.S. CONST. art. VI, cl. 2 ..........................................................................................................................6
`
`RULES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8......................................................................................................................................20
`
`-viii-
`NESTLÉ USA INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS; CASE NO. 15-CV-01963-MMC
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-01963-MMC Document 26 Filed 07/17/15 Page 14 of 40
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 9.....................................................................................................................3, 17, 18, 24
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12....................................................................................................................................20
`
`-ix-
`NESTLÉ USA INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS; CASE NO. 15-CV-01963-MMC
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-01963-MMC Document 26 Filed 07/17/15 Page 15 of 40
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Through his amended complaint (“FAC”), plaintiff attempts to add a new, personal-injury theory
`
`of liability to the false advertising case he attempted (and failed) to plead in the initial complaint. Under
`
`either theory, however, plaintiff has not stated a claim upon which relief may be granted.
`
`Plaintiff attempts to bar and declare illegal the use of partially hydrogenated oil (“PHO”) in
`
`Nestlé USA, Inc.’s (“NUSA”) Coffee-mate products by alleging that consumption of PHO creates an
`
`increased risk of adverse health problems because PHO contains trans fat. But, as plaintiff concedes, the
`
`Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”)—the agency to which Congress has explicitly delegated
`
`authority regarding administration of the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”)—recently
`
`issued a final determination regarding the use of PHO in food products after engaging in a multi-year
`
`process that included consideration of thousands of comments from various sources and review and
`
`analysis of scientific information, studies, and data. As part of its determination, FDA declared that
`
`PHO may continue to be used as an ingredient in food products at least until June 18, 2018, and that the
`
`three-year transition period will, among other things, be used by FDA to review petitions regarding the
`
`use of PHO as a food additive even after June 18, 2018. In short, FDA has determined that PHO may be
`
`used, but plaintiff seeks by this lawsuit to supplant FDA’s thoroughly considered, expert action and bar
`
`conduct that FDA expressly permits. That result is preempted: state law liability cannot be used to
`
`foreclose options that federal regulators meant to leave open. See Int’l Paper Co. v. Ouellette, 479 U.S.
`
`481, 494 (1987).
`
`In addition to being preempted, plaintiff’s personal injury claims should b