throbber
Case 2:20-cv-04829-ODW-PLA Document 63 Filed 11/23/20 Page 1 of 27 Page ID #:924
`
`ISABELLE L. ORD (Bar No. 198224)
`isabelle.ord@dlapiper.com
`ELIZABETH C. CALLAHAN (Bar No. 323510)
`elizabeth.callahan@dlapiper.com
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`555 Mission Street, Suite 2400
`San Francisco, CA 94105-2933
`Tel: 415.836.2500
`Fax: 415.836.2501
`
`ALEXANDER E. WOLF (Bar No. 299775)
`alexander.wolf@dlapiper.com
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`2000 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 400 North Tower
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`Tel: 310.595.3000
`Fax: 310.595.3300
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`JUST BRANDS USA, INC., JUST BRANDS, INC.,
`and SSGI FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.
`[Additional Counsel Listed on Signature Page]
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of
` CASE NO. 2:20-CV-04829-ODW-PLA
`himself and all others similarly situated,
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF
`Plaintiff,
`MOTION AND MOTION TO
`DISMISS FIRST AMENDED
`COMPLAINT
`Date:
`January 25, 2021
`Time:
`1:30 p.m.
`Courtroom: 5D
`Judge:
`Hon. Otis D. Wright II
`
`v.
`JUST BRANDS USA, INC., JUST
`BRANDS, INC., and SSGI FINANCIAL
`SERVICES, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`EAST\177497729.2
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FAC
`CASE NO. 2:20-CV-04829
`
`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 2:20-cv-04829-ODW-PLA Document 63 Filed 11/23/20 Page 2 of 27 Page ID #:925
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`TO PLAINTIFF AND ALL ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, on January 25, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in
`Courtroom 5D of this Court, located at 350 West 1st Street, Los Angeles, CA.
`90012, defendants Just Brands USA, Inc. (“Just Brands USA”), Just Brands, Inc.
`(“Just Brands”), and SSGI Financial Services, Inc. (“SSGI”) (collectively,
`“Defendants”) will and hereby do move this Court for an order dismissing the First
`Amended Complaint (“FAC”) of plaintiff Miguel Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) pursuant
`to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6) on the following
`grounds:
`First, Plaintiff lacks Article III and statutory standing to assert claims based
`on products that he did not purchase, or to seek injunctive relief. Second, Plaintiff
`impermissibly lumps together his allegations against all Defendants throughout the
`Complaint, a shotgun-style pleading that violates Rule 8 and Rule 9(b). Third,
`under Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Super. Ct. of Cal., San Francisco Cty., 137 S. Ct.
`1773 (2017) and its progeny, Plaintiff cannot represent a putative nationwide class
`because Defendants are not subject to personal jurisdiction in California for non-
`California putative class members’ claims. Fourth, Plaintiff’s express warranty,
`unjust enrichment, and fraud claims are defective because the FAC fails to specify
`the governing state’s law. Fifth, Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment, Unfair Competition
`Law, and False Advertising Law claims for equitable restitution fail because
`Plaintiff has not (and cannot) allege inadequate remedies at law pursuant to Sonner
`v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 971 F.3d 834, 2020 WL 4882896, at *7 (9th Cir.
`August 20, 2020).
`This Motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the attached
`Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice in
`support of the Motion filed concurrently herewith, the record in this action, and any
`evidence and argument that may be presented at or before the hearing.
`
`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
`
`iN
`
`OTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FAC
` CASE NO. 2:20-CV-04829
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-04829-ODW-PLA Document 63 Filed 11/23/20 Page 3 of 27 Page ID #:926
`
`Concurrently with this Motion, Defendants move to stay this action under the
`“primary jurisdiction doctrine” because the FDA and the States of California and
`Florida are currently considering regulations and guidance applicable to cannabidiol
`(known as CBD), an ingredient in the products at issue here, which may affect the
`claims in this action.
`This Motion is submitted following the conference of counsel pursuant to
`Local Rule 7-3, which took place by telephone on November 12, 2020, involving
`Plaintiff’s attorney Alex Straus and Defendants’ attorneys Isabelle Ord and
`Alexander Wolf. The parties were unable to reach an informal resolution and
`Plaintiff’s counsel stated Plaintiff would oppose the Motion.
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`Dated: November 23, 2020
`
`By: /s/ Isabelle L. Ord
`ISABELLE L. ORD
`ALEXANDER E. WOLF
`ELIZABETH C. CALLAHAN
`Attorneys for Defendants
`JUST BRANDS USA, INC., JUST
`BRANDS, INC., and SSGI FINANCIAL
`SERVICES, INC.
`
`STEFANIE J. FOGEL (Admitted Pro Hac
`Vice)
`stefanie.fogel@dlapiper.com
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`33 Arch Street, 26th Floor
`Boston, MA 02110
`Tel: 617.406.6000
`
`COLLEEN C. GULLIVER (Admitted Pro
`Hac Vice)
`colleen.gulliver@dlapiper.com
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`1251 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10020
`Tel: 212.335.4500
`ii
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FAC
`CASE NO. 2:20-CV-04829
`
`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 2:20-cv-04829-ODW-PLA Document 63 Filed 11/23/20 Page 4 of 27 Page ID #:927
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`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
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS ................................................................ 2
`II.
`LEGAL STANDARD .................................................................................... 4
`III.
`IV. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................. 5
`A.
`Plaintiff Lacks Standing to Assert Certain Claims .............................. 5
`1.
`Plaintiff Lacks Standing to Assert Claims for Products He
`Did Not Buy ............................................................................... 5
`Plaintiff Lacks Standing to Pursue Injunctive Relief ................ 8
`2.
`Plaintiff’s FAC Fails to Direct Specific Allegations at Individual
`Defendants .......................................................................................... 10
`The Court Lacks Personal Jurisdiction Over the Claims of All
`Non-California Putative Class Members ........................................... 11
`Plaintiff’s Express Warranty, Unjust Enrichment, and Fraud
`Claims Are Defective ......................................................................... 13
`Plaintiff’s Unjust Enrichment, UCL, and FAL Claims for
`Equitable Restitution Fail Because Plaintiff Has Not Alleged
`Inadequate Remedies at Law ............................................................. 14
`LEAVE TO AMEND SHOULD BE DENIED ........................................... 17
`V.
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 18
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`iii
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FAC
`CASE NO. 2:20-CV-04829
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-04829-ODW-PLA Document 63 Filed 11/23/20 Page 5 of 27 Page ID #:928
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Motorcycle Info. Network, Inc.,
`390 F. Supp. 2d 1170 (M.D. Fla. 2005) ............................................................... 14
`Amba Mktg. Sys. v. Jobar Int’l,
`551 F.2d 784 (9th Cir. 1977) .................................................................................. 4
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ......................................................................................... 4, 10
`Becerra v. Gen. Motors LLC,
`241 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (S.D. Cal. 2017) ................................................................ 14
`Bird v. First Alert, Inc.,
`2014 WL 7248734 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2014) ............................................. 1, 7, 16
`Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Super. Ct. of Cal., San Francisco Cty.,
`137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017)................................................................................ 1, 11, 12
`Carpenter v. PetSmart, Inc.,
`No. 19-CV-1731-CAB-LL, 2020 WL 996947 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 2,
`2020) ..................................................................................................................... 12
`Carrea v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc.,
`2011 WL 159380 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011) .......................................................... 5
`Conder v. Home Sav. of Am.,
`No. CV 077051AGCT, 2010 WL 2486765 (C.D. Cal. June 14,
`2010) ....................................................................................................................... 4
`Courthouse News Serv. v. Planet,
`750 F.3d 776 (9th Cir. 2014) .................................................................................. 5
`Crosby v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
`42 F. Supp. 3d 1343 (C.D. Cal. 2014) .................................................................. 17
`Daimler AG v. Bauman,
`571 U.S. 117 (2014) ............................................................................................. 12
`Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.,
`889 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2018) .................................................................................. 9
`iv
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FAC
`CASE NO. 2:20-CV-04829
`
`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 2:20-cv-04829-ODW-PLA Document 63 Filed 11/23/20 Page 6 of 27 Page ID #:929
`
`Destfino v. Kennedy,
`No. CVF081269LJODLB, 2009 WL 63566 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2009) ................. 10
`Duttweiler v. Triumph Motorcycles (Am.) Ltd.,
`2015 WL 4941780 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2015) ..................................................... 16
`Dysthe v. Basic Research LLC,
`No. 09-cv-8013-AG, 2011 WL 5868307 (C.D. Cal. Jun. 13, 2011) .................. 5, 8
`Franklin v. Gwinnett Cnty. Pub. Sch.,
`503 U.S. 60 (1992) ............................................................................................... 14
`Gibson v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC,
`CV2000769CJCGJSX, 2020 WL 5492990 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2020) ................. 15
`Huu Nguyen v. Nissan N. Am., Inc.,
`2017 WL 1330602 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2017)...................................................... 13
`In re 5-hour Energy Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig.,
`No. 13-MDL-2438-PSG, 2017 WL 385042 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 24,
`2017) ............................................................................................................... 6, 7, 8
`In re Carrier IQ, Inc.,
`78 F. Supp. 3d 1051 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .................................................................. 13
`In re Dental Supplies Antitrust Litig.,
`2017 WL 4217115 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) .................................................................... 13
`In re MacBook Keyboard Litig.,
`No. 5:18-CV-02813-EJD, 2020 WL 6047253 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 13,
`2020) ..................................................................................................................... 15
`Jackson v. Gen. Mills, Inc.,
`2019 WL 4599845 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2019) ................................................. 8, 10
`Julian v. TTE Technology Inc.,
`No. 20-CV-02857-EMC, 2020 WL 6743912 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 17,
`2020) ..................................................................................................................... 15
`Kearns v. Ford Motor Co.,
`567 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) ................................................................................ 5
`Lanovaz v. Twinings N. Am., Inc.,
`726 F. App’x 590 (9th Cir. 2018) ........................................................................... 9
`
`vN
`
`OTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FAC
`CASE NO. 2:20-CV-04829
`
`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 2:20-cv-04829-ODW-PLA Document 63 Filed 11/23/20 Page 7 of 27 Page ID #:930
`
`Magluta v. Samples,
`256 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2001) ............................................................................ 10
`Miller v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co.,
`912 F. Supp. 2d 861 (N.D. Cal. 2012) .................................................................... 6
`Mollicone v. Universal Handicraft, Inc.,
`2017 WL 440257 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2017) ......................................................... 14
`Munning v. Gap, Inc.,
`238 F. Supp. 3d 1195 (N.D. Cal. 2017) .................................................... 16, 17, 18
`O’Shea v. Littleton,
`414 U.S. 488 (1974) ............................................................................................... 9
`Philips v. Ford Motor Co.,
`726 F. App’x 608 (9th Cir. 2018) ......................................................................... 15
`Prudential Home Mortgage Company, Inc. v. Sup. Ct.,
`66 Cal. App. 4th 1236 (1998) ............................................................................... 14
`Rhynes v. Stryker Corp.,
`2011 WL 2149095 (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2011) ..................................................... 16
`Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink,
`284 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2002) ................................................................................ 4
`Robinson v. United States,
`586 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2009) .................................................................................. 4
`Romero v. Flowers Bakeries, LLC,
`No. 14-CV-05189-BLF, 2016 WL 469370 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2016) .................. 13
`Shin v. Time Squared Global, LLC,
`No. SACV 15-00943 AG, 2015 WL 13284952 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 26,
`2015) ............................................................................................................... 10, 11
`Snyder v. Green Roads of Fla. LLC,
`2020 WL 42239 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 3, 2020) ................................................................ 5
`Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp.,
`971 F.3d 834, 2020 WL 4882896 (9th Cir. August 20, 2020) ............... 2, 3, 15, 16
`
`vi
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FAC
`CASE NO. 2:20-CV-04829
`
`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 2:20-cv-04829-ODW-PLA Document 63 Filed 11/23/20 Page 8 of 27 Page ID #:931
`
`Tabler v. Panera LLC,
`No. 19-CV-01646-LHK, 2019 WL 5579529 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29,
`2019) ................................................................................................................... 8, 9
`Wallace v. SharkNinja Operating, LLC,
`No. 18-CV-05221-BLF, 2020 WL 1139649 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9,
`2020) ....................................................................................................................... 9
`Wenokur v. AXA Equitable Life Ins. Co.,
`2017 WL 4357916 (D. Ariz. Oct. 2, 2017) .......................................................... 12
`White v. Lee,
`227 F.3d 1214 (9th Cir. 2000) ............................................................................ 4, 5
`Wilson v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc.,
`961 F. Supp. 2d 1134 (N.D. Cal. 2013) .................................................................. 6
`Yumul v. Smart Balance, Inc.,
`733 F. Supp. 2d 1117 (C.D. Cal. 2010) .................................................................. 5
`Zaback v. Kellogg Sales Co.,
`No. 320CV00268BENMSB, 2020 WL 6381987 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 29,
`2020) ..................................................................................................................... 16
`Zapata Fonseca v. Goya Foods Inc.,
`2016 WL 4698942 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2016) ....................................................... 17
`STATUTES
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. ............................................................. passim
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, et seq. ............................................................. passim
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 ......................................................................................... passim
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 ..................................................................................................... 1, 10
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) ............................................................................................ 1, 5, 10
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) .................................................................................................. 17
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) ........................................................................................... 4, 5
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) ......................................................................................... 4, 11
`
`vii
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FAC
`CASE NO. 2:20-CV-04829
`
`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 2:20-cv-04829-ODW-PLA Document 63 Filed 11/23/20 Page 9 of 27 Page ID #:932
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ........................................................................................... 2, 4
`Fla. Stat. § 501.201, et seq. .............................................................................. 4, 14, 18
`
`viii
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FAC
`CASE NO. 2:20-CV-04829
`
`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 2:20-cv-04829-ODW-PLA Document 63 Filed 11/23/20 Page 10 of 27 Page ID #:933
`
`I.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`INTRODUCTION
`This action rests on a single theory of liability: that defendants Just Brands
`USA, Inc. (“Just Brands USA”), Just Brands, Inc. (“Just Brands”), and SSGI
`Financial Services, Inc. (“SSGI”) (collectively, “Defendants”) allegedly engaged in
`unlawful food labeling practices by selling underfilled cannabidiol (“CBD”)
`products. In support of these allegations, the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”),
`like the original Complaint, relies on alleged laboratory test results for fifteen CBD
`products purporting to show that the quantity of CBD in the products is less than as
`stated on the product labels. Like the original Complaint, the FAC does not attach
`the mystery lab test, let alone describe the testing or methodology, or allege that the
`testing was performed on the actual products Plaintiff purchased. Moreover,
`Plaintiff admittedly only purchased one of the allegedly tested products. Based on
`these intentionally vague allegations, Plaintiff purports to represent a sweeping
`nationwide class of consumers consisting of anyone who purchased any JustCBD-
`branded products (“Products”), including numerous untested products, regardless of
`type, flavor, or concentration.
`Although Plaintiff voluntarily amended his Complaint, in the FAC Plaintiff
`simply dismissed two improperly named defendants but failed to remedy any of the
`other deficiencies identified in Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Therefore, the FAC,
`like the original Complaint, is flawed and must be dismissed for five independent
`reasons.
`First, Plaintiff lacks Article III and statutory standing to assert claims for the
`Products he did not purchase, or to seek injunctive relief. Second, Plaintiff
`impermissibly lumps together his allegations against all Defendants throughout the
`Complaint, a shotgun-style pleading that violates Rule 8 and Rule 9(b). Third,
`under Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Super. Ct. of Cal., San Francisco Cty., 137 S. Ct.
`1773 (2017) and its progeny, Plaintiff cannot represent a putative nationwide class
`
`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
`
`1N
`
`OTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FAC
`CASE NO. 2:20-CV-04829
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-04829-ODW-PLA Document 63 Filed 11/23/20 Page 11 of 27 Page ID #:934
`
`because Defendants are not subject to personal jurisdiction in California for non-
`California putative class members’ claims. Fourth, Plaintiff’s express warranty,
`unjust enrichment, and fraud claims are defective because the FAC does not specify
`the governing law, as it must. Fifth, Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment, Unfair
`Competition Law, and False Advertising Law claims for equitable restitution all fail
`because Plaintiff has not (and cannot) allege inadequate remedies at law pursuant to
`Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 971 F.3d 834, 2020 WL 4882896, at *7 (9th Cir.
`August 20, 2020).
`For these reasons, Defendants respectfully request that their motion to dismiss
`the FAC be granted in full.
`II.
`SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS1
`CBD is a “highly sought-after additive” with medicinal properties that is sold
`in a variety of forms, including compounds, tinctures, and edibles. (FAC ¶ 1.)
`Among other things, CBD is used to “treat anxiety, insomnia, depression, diabetes,
`PTSD, and chronic pain,” and can be ingested in multiple ways, including by
`“inhalation of smoke or vapor, as an aerosol spray into the cheek, and by mouth.”
`(Id.) Food and beverage items can also be “infused with CBD.” (Id.)
`Plaintiff Miguel Rodriguez resides in Van Nuys, California. (Id. ¶ 5.) On
`October 2, 2018, he purchased “JustCBD Signature CBD Cartridges” in the
`Pineapple Express and Northern Lights flavors, and on March 17, 2019, he
`purchased “JustCBD CBD Gummies 1000mg” and “JustPets Dog Treats.” (Id.)
`Plaintiff alleges that he purchased the Products from justcbdstore.com, and
`“reviewed the accompanying labels, disclosures, warranties, and marketing
`materials, and understood them as representations and warranties by Defendants that
`the Products contained the quantities of CBD advertised.” (Id. ¶ 6.) In total,
`
`1 Defendants deny the factual allegations in the FAC but recognize that the Court must assume
`them to be true in assessing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
`
`2N
`
`OTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FAC
`CASE NO. 2:20-CV-04829
`
`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 2:20-cv-04829-ODW-PLA Document 63 Filed 11/23/20 Page 12 of 27 Page ID #:935
`
`Plaintiff purchased only four Products (only one of which was purportedly tested),
`with his last purchase occurring approximately twenty months ago in March 2019.
`(Id. ¶ 5.)
`At their core, Plaintiff’s claims rest on “independent lab testing” allegedly
`showing that the quantity of CBD in certain Products is “only a small fraction of
`Defendants’ representations.” (Id. ¶ 20.) This purported testing was allegedly
`“commissioned” by Plaintiff’s counsel on June 4, 2019 and conducted by an
`unidentified lab, in an unidentified location, using unidentified methodologies. (Id.)
`Fifteen Products were apparently tested once, and Plaintiff alleges that the test
`results showed various levels of underfill of CBD. (Id.)
`Despite the lack of any allegations as to the testing methodology or conditions
`and after conceding the limited scope of Plaintiff’s laboratory testing, Plaintiff
`speculates that over fifty CBD Products “overstate the quantity of CBD.” (Id. ¶¶ 1-
`2, 17.) These allegedly underfilled products—most of which were not tested at
`all—include all concentrations of gummies (sour bears, apple rings, happy faces,
`worms, sour worms, rainbow ribbons, gummy cherries, blueberry rings, and
`watermelon rings); edibles/dried fruit (apricots, apple slices, pineapple chunks,
`papaya chunks, kiwi chunks and mango); honey, oil, and isolate products (coconut
`oil and honey sticks); tinctures; and vape cartridges. (Id. ¶¶ 17A-17E.)
`In addition to overreaching on the testing and underfill allegations, the FAC
`also baselessly groups all of the Defendants together in conclusory fashion, asserting
`wrongly and without factual support that each of the three Defendants
`“manufactured, marketed, and/or sold the CBD Products” and “acted in concert
`with, with the knowledge and approval of, and/or as the agent of the other
`Defendants.” (Id. ¶ 6-10.)
`Based on the above, Plaintiff asserts claims for himself and on behalf of a
`nationwide class and a California subclass for (i) breach of express warranty; (ii)
`unjust enrichment; (iii) fraud; (iv) violations of the California Consumers Legal
`
`3N
`
`OTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FAC
`CASE NO. 2:20-CV-04829
`
`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 2:20-cv-04829-ODW-PLA Document 63 Filed 11/23/20 Page 13 of 27 Page ID #:936
`
`Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 (“CLRA”); (v) violations of the California
`Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. (“UCL”); (vi)
`violations of the California False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500,
`et seq. (“FAL”); and (vii) violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
`Practices Act, Fla. Stat. § 501.201, et seq. (“FDUTPA”).
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`Questions of subject matter jurisdiction, including Article III standing, are
`addressed under Rule 12(b)(1). White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th Cir. 2000)
`(standing pertains to a federal court’s subject matter jurisdiction). Once a court’s
`jurisdiction is challenged, the party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of
`establishing it. Robinson v. United States, 586 F.3d 683, 685 (9th Cir. 2009).
`Rule 12(b)(2) allows a defendant to challenge a complaint for lack of personal
`jurisdiction. The determination of whether to exercise personal jurisdiction is a
`question of law. Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1019 (9th Cir.
`2002). Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the Court has personal
`jurisdiction over each defendant for each claim, and is “obligated to come forward
`with facts, by affidavit or otherwise, supporting personal jurisdiction.” Amba Mktg.
`Sys. v. Jobar Int’l, 551 F.2d 784, 787 (9th Cir. 1977).
`A motion under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of Plaintiff’s claims.
`The FAC must allege “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).
`Plaintiff cannot rely on “threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,
`supported by mere conclusory statements,” or “allegations that are merely
`conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.” Conder v.
`Home Sav. of Am., No. CV 077051AGCT, 2010 WL 2486765, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June
`14, 2010).
`Each of Plaintiff’s claims is grounded in alleged fraud, namely that
`Defendants knowingly and intentionally misrepresented the CBD content of the
`
`4N
`
`OTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FAC
`CASE NO. 2:20-CV-04829
`
`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 2:20-cv-04829-ODW-PLA Document 63 Filed 11/23/20 Page 14 of 27 Page ID #:937
`
`Products. (E.g. FAC ¶¶ 6, 20, 26.) Plaintiff must therefore satisfy the heightened
`pleading standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) and allege the “who,
`what, when, where, and how” of the alleged fraud with particularity. See Kearns v.
`Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120, 1124 (9th Cir. 2009); Yumul v. Smart Balance, Inc.,
`733 F. Supp. 2d 1117, 1122-25 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (dismissing consumer fraud claims
`on Rule 9(b) grounds).
`IV. ARGUMENT
`A.
`Plaintiff Lacks Standing to Assert Certain Claims
`A Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional attack to Article III standing can be either
`facial or factual. White, 227 F.3d at 1242 (9th Cir. 2000). “A ‘facial’ attack asserts
`that a complaint’s allegations are themselves insufficient to invoke jurisdiction,
`while a ‘factual’ attack asserts that the complaint’s allegations, though adequate on
`their face to invoke jurisdiction, are untrue.” Courthouse News Serv. v. Planet, 750
`F.3d 776, 780 n.3 (9th Cir. 2014). Here, the FAC on its face establishes that
`Plaintiff lacks standing to assert claims: (1) based on unpurchased products; and (2)
`for injunctive relief.
`1.
`Plaintiff Lacks Standing to Assert Claims for Products He
`Did Not Buy
`As a general matter, plaintiffs bringing claims premised on allegedly false and
`misleading labeling do not have Article III or statutory standing to sue on products
`they did not purchase. Carrea v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc., 2011 WL
`159380, *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011) (dismissing labeling claims for products
`plaintiff did not purchase or “otherwise suffered any injury or lost money or
`property”) (abrogated on other grounds); Dysthe v. Basic Research LLC, No. 09-cv-
`8013-AG, 2011 WL 5868307, *4 (C.D. Cal. Jun. 13, 2011) (“Plaintiff does not have
`standing to bring her CLRA, UCL or warranty claim based on a product that she
`never purchased.”); Snyder v. Green Roads of Fla. LLC, 2020 WL 42239, at *3
`(S.D. Fla. Jan. 3, 2020) (in action alleging “product labels misrepresented the
`
`5N
`
`OTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FAC
`CASE NO. 2:20-CV-04829
`
`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 2:20-cv-04829-ODW-PLA Document 63 Filed 11/23/20 Page 15 of 27 Page ID #:938
`
`amount of CBD that each product contained,” the court concluded that “Plaintiffs do
`not have standing to assert claims based on the marketing of [CBD] products that
`they did not purchase”). Under this line of reasoning, Plaintiff lacks standing to
`assert claims for all but four of the Products challenged in the FAC.
`Although some courts find an exception to this rule if the named plaintiff
`brings suit on several related products where the products, misrepresentations, and
`injury are “substantially similar,” that exception does not apply here. Miller v.
`Ghirardelli Chocolate Co., 912 F. Supp. 2d 861, 869 (N.D. Cal. 2012). To
`determine whether the purchased and non-purchased products are “substantially
`similar,” courts consider “whether the challenged products are of the same kind,
`whether they are comprised of largely the same ingredients, and whether each of the
`challenged products bears the same alleged mislabeling.” Wilson v. Frito-Lay N.
`Am., Inc., 961 F. Supp. 2d 1134, 1141 (N.D. Cal. 2013). Notably, courts have
`recognized that even subtle distinctions between ingredients or serving sizes, which
`are present here, can make two products decidedly different.
`For example, in In re 5-hour Energy Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., No. 13-
`MDL-2438-PSG, 2017 WL 385042 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2017), a putative class action
`challenging the marketing and sale of energy beverages, the defendant advertised
`beverages as a “dietary supplement and [sold] it in regular, extra-strength, and
`decaffeinated varieties, in a number of different fruit flavors, and online and in retail
`locations.” Id. at *1-2. According to plaintiffs, the advertising was false and
`misleading because the beverages provide “only a few minutes of energy, at most,
`and results in a ‘crash’ at the end of the five hours.” Id. The defendant sought
`dismissal of claims based on decaffeinated products because the plaintiff only
`purchased caffeinated products, and the Court agreed. Id. at *13. “Although the
`purported misstatements on the decaffeinated 5HE packaging are identical to the
`purported misstatements on the caffeinated packaging . . . the products’ ingredients
`differ significantly. Decaffeinated 5HE ‘contains only 6 mg of caffeine,’ whereas
`
`6N
`
`OTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FAC
`CASE NO. 2:20-CV-04829
`
`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 2:20-cv-04829-ODW-PLA Document 63 Filed 11/23/20 Page 16 of 27 Page ID #:939
`
`regular strength 5HE contains 200 mg.” Id. (emphasis added). As such, “this is not
`a case where the composition of the product is immaterial.” Id.
`The same reasoning applies here. Plaintiff only alleges that he purchased four
`products—two flavors of cartridges, 1000 mg gummies, and dog treats—yet seeks
`to pursue putative class claims covering over fifty products, including dried fruits,
`oils, honey sticks, isolate powders, and tinctures, all in different flavors, formats,
`and concentrations (the “Non-Purchased Products”). (FAC ¶¶ 5, 17A-17E.) As in
`In re 5-hour Energy, the purchased and Non-Purchased Products are too different in
`material ways to permit a non-purchaser to pursue mislabeling claims as to all of
`them.
`
`First, the makeup of ingredients and challenged labeling differ across the
`purchased and Non-Purchased Products. The FAC alleges the Products are sold in
`13 different concentrations,2 with purportedly inaccurate CBD concentrations on
`the labels. Plaintiff, however, only purchased four Products in three concentrations,
`with the concentration shown on the labeling: (1) JustCBD Signature CBD
`Cartridges in the Pineapple Express and Northern Lights flavors [200mg CBD each];
`JustCBD CBD Gummies [1000mg CBD]; and JustPets Dog Treats [100mg CBD].
`(FAC ¶¶ 5, 19E; RJN Exs. 1-4.) Moreover, Plaintiff does not even allege testing any
`Products in the following six concentrations: 25mg CBD, 50mg CBD, 65mg CBD,
`550mg CBD, 1500mg CBD, or 3000mg CBD. (FAC ¶ 20.)
`Because differences in CBD concentrations go to the heart of this acti

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket