Case 2:21-cv-04786-JAK-MAR Document 25 Filed 12/20/21 Page 1 of 33 Page ID #:235
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`
`
`Matthew Strugar (SBN 232951)
`Law Office of Matthew Strugar
`3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2910
`Los Angeles, CA 90010
`(323) 696-2299
`matthew@matthewstrugar.com
`
`Jay R. Shooster (pro hac vice)
`Richman Law & Policy
`535 Mission Street
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Telephone: (718) 705-4579
`Facsimile: (718) 228-8522
`jshooster@richmanlawpolicy.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Marshall
`and Proposed Class
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`
`
`Dezzi Rae Marshall, on behalf of
`herself and all others similarly
`situated,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Red Lobster Management LLC and
`Red Lobster Hospitality LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No. 2:21-cv-04786-JAK-MAR
`[Assigned to Hon. John A. Kronstadt]
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
`DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FIRST
`AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
`FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
`UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE
`GRANTED PURSUANT TO FED.
`R. CIV. P. 12(B)(6)
`
`
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`i
` PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-04786-JAK-MAR Document 25 Filed 12/20/21 Page 2 of 33 Page ID #:236
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT ..........1
`
`STANDARD OF REVIEW .......................................................................................3
`
`ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................5
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF MARSHALL PROPERLY STATES CLAIMS UNDER
`THE CONSUMER-PROTECTION LAWS. ........................................6
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiff Has Satisfied the Reasonable Consumer Test. ..............6
`
`
`B. Reasonable Restaurant Consumers Are Not Expected to Read
`Red Lobster’s Website. .............................................................10
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiff Marshall’s Allegations Meet the Heightened Pleading
`Standard. ...................................................................................14
`
`
`
`D. Red Lobster’s Sustainability Representations Are Not
`Puffery. .....................................................................................18
`
`
`
`E.
`
`Plaintiff States Claims Under the Unlawful and Unfair Prongs
`of the UCL. ...............................................................................20
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF MARSHALL HAS STANDING TO PURSUE
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. ......................................................................21
`
` PLAINTIFF MARSHALL MAY PURSUE PUNITIVE
`DAMAGES. ........................................................................................23
`
`
`CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................24
`
`
`ii
` PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-04786-JAK-MAR Document 25 Filed 12/20/21 Page 3 of 33 Page ID #:237
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Annunziato v. eMachines, Inc., 402 F. Supp.2d 1133 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (Selna, J.).
`
` .......................................................................................................................19, 20
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). .................................................................3, 4
`
`Ashton v. J.M. Smucker Co., No. EDCV 20-992-JGB(SHKx), 2020 U.S. Dist.
`
`LEXIS 250428 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2020). ..........................................................23
`
`Becerra v. Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc., 945 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2019). .....................9
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). .................................................3, 4
`
`Bell v. Publix Super Mkts., Inc., 982 F.3d 468 (7th Cir. 2020). ................................7
`
`Beyer v. Symantec Corp., 333 F. Supp.3d 966 (N.D. Cal. 2018). ...........................19
`
`Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449 (9th Cir. 1994). ...................................................3, 5
`
`Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2011).
`
` .............................................................................................................................15
`
`Cervantes v. City of San Diego, 5 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 1993). ..............................3, 5
`
`Chacanaca v. Quaker Oats Co., 752 F. Supp.2d 1111 (N.D. Cal. 2010). ................4
`
`Clark v. Westbrae Nat., Inc., No. 20-CV-03221, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78703 (N.D.
`
`Cal. Apr. 22, 2021). ...............................................................................................9
`
`Cook, Perkiss & Liehe, Inc. v. Northern Cal. Collection Serv., Inc., 911 F.2d 242
`
`(9th Cir.1990). .....................................................................................................19
`
`
`iii
` PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-04786-JAK-MAR Document 25 Filed 12/20/21 Page 4 of 33 Page ID #:238
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Cordes v. Boulder Brands USA, Inc., No. CV 18-6534-PSG(JCx), 2018 U.S. Dist.
`
`LEXIS 217534 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2018). ..........................................................22
`
`Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 889 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2018). ............21, 22, 23
`
`Flood v. Miller, 35 Fed. Appx. 701 (9th Cir. 2002). ...............................................15
`
`FTC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 883 F.3d 848 (9th Cir. 2018). .....................................8
`
`Godecke ex rel. United States v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 937 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir.
`
`2019). .....................................................................................................................4
`
`Govea v. Gruma Corp., No. CV 20-8585-MFW(JCx), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`
`192357 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2021). .....................................................................23
`
`10
`
`Hanna v. Walmart, Inc., No. 5:20-cv-01075-MCS-SHK, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`
`11
`
`237505 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2020). .......................................................................22
`
`12
`
`Hardt v. Chrysler Grp. LLC, No. SACV-14-01375-SJO(VBKx), 2015 U.S. Dist.
`
`13
`
`LEXIS 187386 (C.D. Cal. June 15, 2015). ..........................................................24
`
`14
`
`Hill v. Roll Int’l Corp, 195 Cal. App. 4th 1295 (2011). ..........................................14
`
`15
`
`In re Coca-Cola Prods. Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig. (No. II), No. 20-15742, 2021
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`U.S. App. LEXIS 26239 (9th Cir. Aug. 31, 2021). .............................................22
`
`In re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Mktg., Sales Pracs., & Prod.
`
`Liab. Litig., 754 F. Supp.2d 1145 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (Selna, J.). ..........................19
`
`19
`
`Int’l Longshore & Warehouse Union, Local 40 v. Columbia Grain, No. 313-CV-
`
`20
`
`
`
`00513, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136326 (D. Ore. July 21, 2014) ...........................5
`
`
`iv
` PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-04786-JAK-MAR Document 25 Filed 12/20/21 Page 5 of 33 Page ID #:239
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Jackson v. General Mills, Inc., No. 18cv2634-LAB(BGS), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`
`157898 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2020). .....................................................................22
`
`Kang v. P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc., 844 F. App’x 969 (9th Cir. 2021). ..........7
`
`L.A. Taxi Coop., Inc. v. Uber Techs., Inc., 114 F. Supp.3d 852 (N.D. Cal. 2015).
`
` .......................................................................................................................19, 20
`
`Lavigne v. Herbalife, LTD, No. LA CV18-07480 JAK (MRWx), 2019 U.S. Dist.
`
`LEXIS 216778 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2019). ..........................................................16
`
`Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2001). ....................................3, 4
`
`Lee, U.S. ex rel. v. Corinthian Colls., 655 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2011). ................15, 18
`
`10
`
`Lorentzen v. Kroger Co., No. 2:20-cv-06754-SB-RAO, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`
`11
`
`79931 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2021). ......................................................................7, 17
`
`12
`
`Marshall v. Ford Motor Co., No. 1:17-CV-0006, 2017 U.S. Dist. Lexis 53935 (E.D.
`
`13
`
`Cal. Apr. 7, 2017). ...............................................................................................23
`
`14
`
`Moore v. Mars Petcare US, Inc., 966 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2020). ...........................14
`
`15
`
`Moore v. Trader Joe’s Co., 4 F. 4th 874 (9th Cir. 2021). .............................7, 12, 13
`
`16
`
`N. Star Int’l v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, 720 F.2d 578 (9th Cir. 1983). .........................5
`
`17
`
`Nayab v. Cap. One Bank (USA), N.A., 942 F.3d 480 (9th Cir. 2019). ..............15, 17
`
`18
`
`Orlick v. Rawlings Sporting Goods Co., No. CV 12-6787-GHK (RZX), 2013 WL
`
`19
`
`20
`
`
`
`12139142 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2013). ..................................................................19
`
`v
` PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-04786-JAK-MAR Document 25 Filed 12/20/21 Page 6 of 33 Page ID #:240
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Padilla v. Whitewave Foods Co., No. LA CV18-09327-JAK(JCx), 2019 U.S. Dist.
`
`LEXIS 167126 (C.D. Cal. July 26, 2019). ....................................................21, 23
`
`Rubenstein v. Neiman Marcus Grp. LLC, 687 F. App’x 564 (9th Cir. 2017). ........17
`
`Schertzer v. Bank of Am., N.A., 445 F. Supp.3d 1058 (S.D. Cal. 2020). .................22
`
`Schneider v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 328 F.R.D. 520 (N.D. Cal. 2018). .......11
`
`United States v. Redwood City, 640 F.2d 963 (9th Cir. 1981). .................................3
`
`Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 317 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2003). .....................................15
`
`Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2008). .......................3, 7, 12
`
`Wool v. Tandem Computers Inc., 818 F.2d 1433 (9th Cir. 1987). ....................15, 16
`
`10
`
`Yu v. Dr. Pepper Snapple Grp., Inc., No. 18-CV-06664, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`
`11
`
`185322 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2020). ....................................................................9, 22
`
`12
`
`Zeiger v. WellPet LLC, 304 F. Supp.3d 837 (N.D. Cal. 2018). ...............................19
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`
`
`Statutes
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et. seq. ......................................................6, 14, 20
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500 et. seq. ......................................................6, 14, 20
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 3294 .............................................................................................23
`
`Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750 et. seq. .....................................................................6, 14, 20
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ................................................................................... passim
`
`vi
` PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-04786-JAK-MAR Document 25 Filed 12/20/21 Page 7 of 33 Page ID #:241
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) .......................................................................................... passim
`
`vii
` PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-04786-JAK-MAR Document 25 Filed 12/20/21 Page 8 of 33 Page ID #:242
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`This is a relatively straightforward case of consumer deception in the
`
`restaurant industry. In her First Amended Class Action Complaint (“Am. Compl.,”
`
`Dkt. #18, 09/20/2021), Plaintiff Dezzi Rae Marshall alleges:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Defendants Red Lobster Management LLC and Red Lobster
`Hospitality LLC (collectively, “Red Lobster”) make representations
`about the sustainability of their shrimp and Maine lobster products,
`which the pleading refers to as “Sustainability Representations” (Am.
`Compl. ¶¶ 4-5);
`
`These representations are uniformly made to Red Lobster’s customers,
`on the cover of Red Lobster’s menu and inside the menu (id. ¶¶ 4-5,
`29);
`
`Red Lobster refers to these representations about sustainability as
`“promises” to its customers (id. ¶¶ 4-5, 29, 68);
`
`Studies show, and Red Lobster knows, that these Sustainability
`Representations have meaning to consumers, and lead consumers to
`believe that Red Lobster’s shrimp and Maine lobster are sourced
`according to higher environmental and animal-welfare standards (id.
`¶¶ 31-34, 61);
`
`Despite Red Lobster’s promises, its shrimp and Maine lobster products
`are sourced using environmentally destructive methods with no special
`regard for animal welfare (id. ¶¶ 37-61)—as just one example, the
`Amended Complaint alleges that Red Lobster intentionally continued
`to source from its Maine lobster suppliers even after it learned that
`these suppliers were found to be in violation of the Endangered Species
`Act and had their sustainability certification revoked (id. ¶¶ 36-37, 66);
`and thus,
`
`•
`
`Red Lobster deceives consumers in order to reap higher profits from
`shrimp and Maine lobster products (id. ¶¶ 61-71).
`
`1
` PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-04786-JAK-MAR Document 25 Filed 12/20/21 Page 9 of 33 Page ID #:243
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`
`
`Those allegations suffice to place Red Lobster on notice of the claims.
`
`Nevertheless, the Amended Complaint provides additional detail as well:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Plaintiff Marshall provides detailed allegations regarding her own
`purchases from Red Lobster. She alleges that, on January 4, 2020, she
`purchased the “Family Feast,” “Lobster Lover’s Dream,” and
`“Ultimate Feast” products at Red Lobster’s location in Valencia, CA.
`(Id. ¶ 23.) She further alleges that, in deciding to make these purchases,
`she relied upon Red Lobster’s Sustainability Representations on the
`menu, including “Seafood With Standards,” “Traceable. Sustainable.
`Responsible.,” and “These are more than just words on our menu—it’s
`our promise that all of the seafood we serve is sourced to the highest
`standards.” (Id. ¶ 24; see also id. ¶¶ 4-5 (photographs of menu).)
`
`The Amended Complaint specifies that Defendant Red Lobster
`Management LLC “is involved in Red Lobster’s ‘Seafood with
`Standards’ campaign and marketing,” and Defendant Red Lobster
`Hospitality LLC “is involved in Red Lobster’s restaurants and sales.”
`(Id. ¶ 20.) Plaintiff Marshall further alleges that “Red Lobster’s
`deceptive advertising could not have occurred in the absence of the
`authorization or ratification of an officer, director, or manager of
`Defendants.” (Id. ¶¶ 65-66.)
`
`Red Lobster begins its Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss
`
`Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“Mem.”) with matters outside the pleading,
`
`assuring the Court (like it promises consumers) that Red Lobster is “committed to
`
`serving sustainably sourced seafood from its restaurants across the United States”
`
`and stating (without reference to the pleading) that Plaintiff Marshall is merely
`
`“dissatisfied” with the purported “sustainability program.” (Mem. 1.) In essence,
`
`Red Lobster asks the Court to overlook Plaintiff Marshall’s actual allegations in
`
`favor of its own view: “In truth, the assurances of ‘sustainability’ on Red Lobster’s
`
`2
` PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-04786-JAK-MAR Document 25 Filed 12/20/21 Page 10 of 33 Page ID #:244
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`printed menu are accurate.” (Id.; see also id. at 2 (touting Red Lobster’s history and
`
`purported “commitment”).) That is wholly inappropriate on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion
`
`to dismiss. See, e.g., Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001)
`
`(“[W]hen the legal sufficiency of a complaint’s allegations is tested by a motion
`
`under Rule 12(b)(6) review is limited to the complaint. All factual allegations set
`
`forth in the complaint are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to
`
`plaintiffs.” (internal citations omitted)). 1 Plaintiff Marshall asks the Court to
`
`disregard Red Lobster’s extraneous promises and consider her First Amended
`
`Complaint as actually pleaded—so that the parties may begin discovery on Red
`
`10
`
`Lobster’s promises to consumers.
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`
`
`STANDARD OF REVIEW
`
`Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal is proper only in “extraordinary” cases. United
`
`States v. Redwood City, 640 F.2d 963, 966 (9th Cir. 1981) (citations omitted); see
`
`also Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 2008) (noting “rare
`
`situation in which granting a motion to dismiss is appropriate”). Generally, a claim
`
`is facially plausible, and will survive a motion to dismiss, when the plaintiff pleads
`
`factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
`
`
`
`1 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 695-96 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007); Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449, 453 (9th Cir. 1994);
`Cervantes v. City of San Diego, 5 F.3d 1273, 1274 (9th Cir. 1993).
`
`
`
`3
` PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-04786-JAK-MAR Document 25 Filed 12/20/21 Page 11 of 33 Page ID #:245
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
`
`At this stage of the litigation, Plaintiff Marshall’s obligation is limited to
`
`pleading factual allegations sufficient to state a claim. That is, Rule 9(b) requires
`
`the complaint to be “specific enough to give the defendant notice of the particular
`
`misconduct so that it can defend against the charge . . . . The [plaintiff] must allege
`
`‘the who, what, when, where, and how’ of the misconduct.” Godecke ex rel. United
`
`States v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 937 F.3d 1201, 1208 (9th Cir. 2019) (internal
`
`citations omitted); see also Chacanaca v. Quaker Oats Co., 752 F. Supp.2d 1111,
`
`1126 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (“Even assuming defendant’s Rule 9(b) arguments are
`
`10
`
`relevant to the consideration of a motion for judgment on the pleadings, plaintiffs
`
`11
`
`have identified the particular statements they allege are misleading, the basis for
`
`12
`
`that contention, where those statements appear on the product packaging, and the
`
`13
`
`relevant time period in which the statements were used. As such, they have satisfied
`
`14
`
`the requisite ‘who, what, when, where, and how’ of the misconduct charged.”). A
`
`15
`
`court must assume the truth of these allegations and construe them in the light most
`
`16
`
`favorable to the plaintiff. See Twombly, 550 U.S. 544; Lee, 250 F.3d at 688. As
`
`17
`
`such, a motion to dismiss must accept the pleading as true—not engage the Court
`
`18
`
`in fact disputes before there has been any opportunity to develop a factual record.
`
`19
`
`Review of the legal sufficiency is limited to the “four corners” of the
`
`20
`
`complaint—evidence extrinsic to the pleadings cannot normally be considered in
`
`
`
`4
` PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-04786-JAK-MAR Document 25 Filed 12/20/21 Page 12 of 33 Page ID #:246
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`deciding a 12(b)(6) motion. See Branch, 14 F.3d at 449; Cervantes, 5 F.3d at 1274.
`
`Attempts to force judicial review beyond the four corners of the Complaint are thus
`
`improper; and the Court must treat the motion as such. In the Ninth Circuit, a court
`
`must either exclude extrinsic evidence, or rely on the evidence and convert the
`
`purported Rule 12(b)(6) motion into a motion for summary judgment:
`
`The Ninth Circuit has recognized “. . . a motion to dismiss is not
`automatically converted into a motion for summary judgment whenever
`matters outside the pleading happen to be filed with the court and not
`expressly rejected by the court.” N. Star Int’l v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n,
`720 F.2d 578, 582 (9th Cir. 1983). However, the instances in which
`such conversion does not occur are those where “nothing in the [court]
`record suggest[s] reliance on the [extrinsic evidence]” and a “district
`court . . . expressly indicate[s] that it [is] dismissing [on motion to
`dismiss grounds].” Id.
`
`Int’l Longshore & Warehouse Union, Local 40 v. Columbia Grain, No. 313-CV-
`
`12
`
`00513, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136326, at *13-14 (D. Ore. July 21, 2014)
`
`13
`
`(collecting cases) (holding that motion to dismiss converted to summary judgment).
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`This is a classic case of a uniform “promise”—that is what Red Lobster calls
`
`the Sustainability Representations—about shrimp and Maine Lobster products, a
`
`“promise” to consumers that turns out to be untrue. Red Lobster’s two primary
`
`arguments are (1) that no consumer could interpret sustainability promises actually
`
`to mean that the Products are produced using elevated standards, and (2) that
`
`consumers sitting in a Red Lobster restaurant should be required to check Red
`
`5
` PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-04786-JAK-MAR Document 25 Filed 12/20/21 Page 13 of 33 Page ID #:247
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`
`
`Lobster’s website for qualifications before relying on the unqualified promises on
`
`the menu. Neither of these arguments accords with California law. Equally weak is
`
`Red Lobster’s contention that Plaintiff Marshall, having discovered Red Lobster’s
`
`deception, is no longer allowed to seek to enjoin the ongoing conduct that continues
`
`to harm California consumers. This is a well-pleaded consumer-deception case, and
`
`Plaintiff Marshall should be allowed to take the discovery that will prove her
`
`claims.
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF MARSHALL PROPERLY STATES CLAIMS UNDER
`THE CONSUMER-PROTECTION LAWS.
`
`Plaintiff Marshall’s claims under the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”),
`
`False Advertising Law (“FAL”), and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”)
`
`share a common factual basis: that Red Lobster deceives consumers with
`
`Sustainability Representations about its Shrimp Products and Lobster Products.
`
`This suffices to state a claim under each law.
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiff Has Satisfied the Reasonable Consumer Test.
`
`“To state a claim under the UCL, FAL, or CLRA, a plaintiff must allege the
`
`defendant’s purported misrepresentations are likely to deceive a reasonable
`
`consumer.” Lorentzen v. Kroger Co., No. 2:20-cv-06754-SB-RAO, 2021 U.S. Dist.
`
`LEXIS 79931 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2021) (citing Williams, 552 F.3d at 938). Because
`
`it is usually a question of fact whether a defendant’s representations are deceptive,
`
`6
` PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-04786-JAK-MAR Document 25 Filed 12/20/21 Page 14 of 33 Page ID #:248
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`it is a “rare situation” in which dismissal is appropriate. Id. at 939; see also Kang
`
`v. P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc., 844 F. App’x 969, 970-71 (9th Cir. 2021). A
`
`court may find as a matter of law that no reasonable consumer could be deceived
`
`by a defendant’s advertising only where the plaintiff’s interpretation is
`
`“unreasonable or fanciful,” Moore v. Trader Joe’s Co., 4 F. 4th 874, 883 (9th Cir.
`
`2021) (quoting Bell v. Publix Super Mkts., Inc., 982 F.3d 468, 477 (7th Cir. 2020)),
`
`or where “the advertisement itself made it impossible for the plaintiff to prove that
`
`a reasonable consumer was likely to be deceived,” Williams, 552 F.3d at 939.
`
`Plaintiff Marshall has plausibly alleged that reasonable consumers are likely
`
`10
`
`to be deceived by the Sustainability Representations on Red Lobster’s menu.
`
`11
`
`According to her Amended Complaint, reasonable consumers are deceived by the
`
`12
`
`claims on Red Lobster’s menus that “sustainable” and “responsible” are Red
`
`13
`
`Lobster’s “promise” and that it adheres to the “highest standards” in sourcing its
`
`14
`
`seafood because of its “responsibility to protect and preserve our oceans and marine
`
`15
`
`life for generations to come.” (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 4-5.) Reasonable consumers reading
`
`16
`
`these claims expect Red Lobster to source its seafood “in accordance with the
`
`17
`
`highest environmental and animal welfare standards.” (Id. ¶¶ 6, 30.) Such
`
`18
`
`consumers are likely to be deceived because, contrary to its Sustainability
`
`19
`
`Representations, Red Lobster sources its Maine lobster and shrimp from suppliers
`
`20
`
`that use practices that are detrimental to the environment and animals. (Id. ¶¶ 7-9,
`
`
`
`7
` PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-04786-JAK-MAR Document 25 Filed 12/20/21 Page 15 of 33 Page ID #:249
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`37-61.) Such practices include sourcing from suppliers even after learning that
`
`these suppliers violated the Endangered Species Act and had their sustainability
`
`certification revoked. (Id. ¶¶ 36-37, 66.)
`
`Plaintiff Marshall is not making “unreasonable leaps in logic” (Mem. 11)
`
`when she assumes that “promises” of sustainability mean that Red Lobster is
`
`sourcing with higher environmental and animal-welfare standards. Fact allegations
`
`in the pleading show that Plaintiff’s assumption is reasonable. For example,
`
`Plaintiff Marshall’s interpretation is consistent with the opinion of the Federal
`
`Trade Commission—“the leading federal consumer protection agency,” FTC v.
`
`10
`
`AT&T Mobility LLC, 883 F.3d 848, 850-51 (9th Cir. 2018)—that unqualified
`
`11
`
`sustainability claims do convey that a product is environmentally beneficial or has
`
`12
`
`“no negative environmental impact.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 31.) Her interpretation is
`
`13
`
`likewise supported by the research referenced in the Amended Complaint showing
`
`14
`
`that consumers interpret sustainability in the seafood context to mean protection of
`
`15
`
`animal welfare and the environment. (Id. ¶¶ 32-34.) Red Lobster argues that the
`
`16
`
`consumer surveys do not help meet the reasonable consumer test. (Mem. 13-16.)
`
`17
`
`But the cases Red Lobster cites in support of this argument stand for the proposition
`
`18
`
`that a plaintiff cannot rely solely on a survey to establish how consumers interpret
`
`19
`
`the defendant’s representations when the plaintiff’s interpretation is unreasonable.
`
`20
`
`See Becerra v. Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc., 945 F.3d 1225, 1230-31 (9th Cir. 2019)
`
`
`
`8
` PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-04786-JAK-MAR Document 25 Filed 12/20/21 Page 16 of 33 Page ID #:250
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`(“At bottom, the survey does not shift the prevailing reasonable understanding of
`
`what reasonable consumers understand the word ‘diet’ to mean or make plausible
`
`the allegation that reasonable consumers are misled by the term ‘diet’.”); Yu v. Dr.
`
`Pepper Snapple Grp., Inc., No. 18-CV-06664, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185322, at
`
`*5 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2020) (“Surveys cannot alone salvage implausible claims.”);
`
`Clark v. Westbrae Nat., Inc., No. 20-CV-03221, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78703, at
`
`*2-3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2021) (finding survey allegations did not establish
`
`plausibility of plaintiff’s unreasonable interpretation of “vanilla” labeling). Cf.
`
`Tucker v. Post Consumer Brands, LLC, No. 19-CV-03993, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`
`10
`
`71090, at *13 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2020) (“While the consumer survey described in
`
`11
`
`the amended complaint cannot, on its own, satisfy the reasonable consumer test, it
`
`12
`
`provides further support for plaintiff’s position.”). Plaintiff Marshall’s Amended
`
`13
`
`Complaint does not rely solely on surveys to make plausible an otherwise
`
`14
`
`unreasonable interpretation of Red Lobster’s Sustainability Representations;
`
`15
`
`instead, the surveys cited in the Amended Complaint provide added support her
`
`16
`
`already reasonable theory of consumer deception.
`
`17
`
`Red Lobster’s own menu provides further support, stating that Red Lobster
`
`18
`
`has a “responsibility to protect and preserve our oceans and marine life for
`
`19
`
`generations to come.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 5 (emphasis added).) Whatever definition of
`
`20
`
`sustainability Red Lobster now proffers in litigation, on its menus it clearly conveys
`
`
`
`9
` PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-04786-JAK-MAR Document 25 Filed 12/20/21 Page 17 of 33 Page ID #:251
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`that its sourcing standards protect both the environment and marine animals. This
`
`accords with the dictionary definition of “sustainable” quoted by Red Lobster—
`
`“of, relating to, or being a method of harvesting or using a resource so that the
`
`resource is not depleted or permanently damaged” (Mem. 13)—in that its seafood
`
`sourcing impacts both environmental and marine animal resources. Indeed,
`
`Plaintiff Marshall’s interpretation of the Sustainability Representations makes
`
`more sense than Red Lobster’s illogically narrow position that its sourcing
`
`practices cannot be unsustainable if they do not deplete or permanently damage
`
`lobster or shrimp populations. (Id.) Red Lobster’s attempt to replace Plaintiff
`
`10
`
`Marshall’s reasonable understanding with its own interpretation shows only that a
`
`11
`
`trier of fact is necessary as this lawsuit continues. The issue at this stage is whether
`
`12
`
`Plaintiff Marshall has plausibly asserted that consumers are deceived by Red
`
`13
`
`Lobster’s “promises” of sustainability. In this, she has undoubtedly succeeded.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`
`
`B. Reasonable Restaurant Consumers Are Not Expected to Read
`Red Lobster’s Website.
`
`Red Lobster cannot avoid the unqualified promises on its menu—which
`
`every consumer ordering dinner necessarily sees—with an invitation to find “more
`
`information” (presumably, meant to qualify these promises) on its website. (Mem.
`
`12-14; see also, e.g., Mem. 3 (arguing that Red Lobster’s website provides “up-to-
`
`date information”).) This is Red Lobster’s primary argument, relied upon
`
`10
` PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-04786-JAK-MAR Document 25 Filed 12/20/21 Page 18 of 33 Page ID #:252
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`throughout its Memorandum. (E.g., Mem. 3 (“In short, reasonable consumers
`
`interested in learning more about Red Lobster’s standards have a wealth of
`
`[website] information available to them.”); id. 9 (referring to Red Lobster’s website
`
`for “entirety” of Sustainability Representations); id. 11 (arguing that website
`
`“explicitly outlines” more information about menu promises); id. 18 (“any
`
`reasonable consumer would access the additional information Red Lobster
`
`provides on its website”). Even if the content on Red Lobster’s website did cure
`
`the deception caused by its menu claims (it does not), 2 reasonable restaurant
`
`consumers are not charged with a duty to read a website learn the truth. See
`
`10
`
`Schneider v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 328 F.R.D. 520, 532 (N.D. Cal. 2018)
`
`11
`
`(“It would not be reasonable to expect a consumer to search for disclaimers on a
`
`12
`
`website to clarify a purported misrepresentation on in-store signage.”).
`
`13
`
`Reasonable consumers faced with misrepresentations on the front of a
`
`14
`
`product package are not even expected to look on the side of the same package for
`
`15
`
`qualifying disclosures. See Williams, 552 F.3d at 939-40 (“We disagree with the
`
`16
`
`district court that reasonable consumers should be expected to look beyond
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`2 To be clear, Plaintiff Marshall does not agree with Red Lobster that its
`website cures the deception of its Sustainability Representations on its menus. But
`the website is not at issue as Plaintiff alleges that she and class members reasonably
`relied on the menu claims.
`
`
`
`11
` PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-04786-JAK-MAR Document 25 Filed 12/20/21 Page 19 of 33 Page ID #:253
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`misleading representations on the front of the box to discover the truth from the
`
`ingredient list in small print on the side of the box.”). Likewise, reasonable
`
`restaurant customers are not expected to look beyond deceptive language in a menu
`
`for clarification in other parts of the same menu. See Kang, 844 F. App’x a