`
`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