This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Consumer Law
Unfair Competition
Misbranding

Frank Morgan, Janet Hood v. Wallaby Yogurt Company Inc.

Published: Nov. 2, 2013 | Result Date: Oct. 4, 2013 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 3:13-cv-00296-WHO Bench Decision –  Dismissal in part

Court

USDC Northern


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Darren Lee Brown

Ben F. Pierce Gore
(Pratt & Associates)


Defendant

Kelly Marie Morrison

Kenneth K. Lee


Facts

The Wallaby Yogurt Company Inc. produced yogurt products. Frank Morgan and Janet Hood filed a class action against Wallaby, alleging that the company misbranded its products.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Morgan contended that they purchased various flavors of Wallaby's yogurt, and found that yogurt was misbranded. Wallaby promoted the health benefits of its products and sold its products at a premium price. Plaintiffs claimed that rather than list sugar or "dried cane syrup" as an ingredient of its products, defendant listed "evaporated cane juice" as an ingredient. Evaporated cane juice was simply another name for sugar, which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration advised the food industry not to use because it was false and misleading.

Morgan and Hood claimed they would not have purchased Wallaby's products had they known that the products contained sugar. As a result, they were harmed by Wallaby's misleading labels, which caused them to buy the products. They alleged violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, misleading and deceptive advertising, and violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Wallaby asserted that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring their claims, and also that the federal Nutrition Labeling and Education Act preempted those claims. They also argued that their use of the term "evaporated cane juice" did not constitute fraudulent or unfair behavior under California law.

Result

The court granted Wallaby's motion to dismiss with prejudice the claims of violation of the unlawful prong of California's UCL and Restitution Based on Unjust Enrichment/Quasi-Contract. The remaining claims were dismissed without prejudice.


#118628

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390