Case 3:20-cv-02733-EMC Document 171 Filed 08/04/20 Page 1 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`PAUL J. RIEHLE (SBN 115199)
`paul.riehle@faegredrinker.com
`MATTHEW J. ADLER (SBN 273147)
`matthew.adler@faegredrinker.com
`FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
`Four Embarcadero Center, 27th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94111
`Telephone:
`+1 415 591 7500
`Facsimile:
`+1 415 591 7510
`
`CRAIG S. COLEMAN*
`craig.coleman@faegredrinker.com
`BRYAN K. WASHBURN*
`bryan.washburn@faegredrinker.com
`FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
`2200 Wells Fargo Center
`90 S. Seventh Street
`Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
`Telephone:
`+1 612 766 7000
`Facsimile:
`+1 612 766 1600
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`MICHAEL FOODS, INC.
`* admitted pro hac vice
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`ADRIENNE FRASER, et al.,
`
`Case No. 3:20-cv-02733-EMC
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`CAL-MAINE FOODS, INC., et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`EGG PRODUCERS & MARKETERS’
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’
`COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF
`POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
`SUPPORT
`
`October 15, 2020
`Date:
`1:30 p.m.
`Time:
`Courtroom: 5 - 17th Floor
`Judge:
`Honorable Edward M. Chen
`
`Complaint Filed: April 20, 2020
`Trial Date:
`Not Set
`
`
`EGG PRODUCERS & MARKETERS’ NOTICE OF
`MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’
`COMPLAINT; MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-02733-EMC
`
`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
`
`FAEGRE DRINKER
`BIDDLE & REATH LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02733-EMC Document 171 Filed 08/04/20 Page 2 of 23
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Thursday, October 15, 2020 at 1:30 p.m., or as soon
`
`thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the courtroom of the Honorable Edward M. Chen, United
`
`States District Judge, Northern District of California, located at 450 Golden Gate Avenue,
`
`San Francisco, CA 94102-3489, in Courtroom 5 on the 17th Floor or by remote conferencing as
`
`directed by the Court, the undersigned Defendants Rose Acre Farms, Inc., Michael Foods, Inc.,
`
`Hickman’s Egg Ranch, Inc., Daybreak Foods, Inc., Prairie Star Farms, LLC., and Opal Foods LLC
`
`will, and hereby do, move the Court for an order dismissing the Complaint, ECF No. 1, of Plaintiffs
`
`Adrienne Fraser, Codey DeNoyelles, Chevalia Morgan, Carolyn Flowers, Petrina Fennell, Jill
`
`Mayer, Kat Hall, Eugene F. Elander, Iris Delgado, and Christa Rodriguez.
`
`This Motion is made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b). This Motion is
`
`based on this Notice of Motion and Motion; the accompanying Memorandum of Points and
`
`Authorities; the pleadings and evidence on file in this matter; oral argument of counsel; and such
`
`other materials and argument as properly may be presented in connection with the hearing of the
`
`Motion.
`
`
`
`Dated: August 4, 2020
`
`
`By:/s/ Jay L. Levine
`Jay L. Levine (pro hac vice)
`Ben Z. Steinberger (SBN. 330511)
`PORTER, WRIGHT, MORRIS & ARTHUR
`LLP
`2020 K Street, NW, Suite 600
`Washington DC 20006 Phone: 202-778-3000
`Fax: 202-778-3063
`Email: jlevine@porterwright.com
`Email: bsteinberger@porterwright.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EGG PRODUCERS & MARKETERS’ NOTICE OF
`MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’
`COMPLAINT; MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:/s/ Paul J. Riehle
`Paul J. Riehle
`Matthew J. Adler
`FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH
`LLP
`Four Embarcadero Center, 27th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Phone: 415-591-7500
`Fax: 415-591-7510
`Email: paul.riehle@faegredrinker.com
`Email: matthew.adler@faegredrinker.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-02733-EMC
`
`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
`
`FAEGRE DRINKER
`BIDDLE & REATH LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02733-EMC Document 171 Filed 08/04/20 Page 3 of 23
`
`
`
`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
`
`James A. King (pro hac vice)
`PORTER, WRIGHT, MORRIS & ARTHUR
`LLP
`41 S. High Street, Suite 3100
`Columbus OH 43215
`Phone: 614-227-2000
`Fax: 614-227-2100
`Email: jking@porterwright.com
`
`Andrew William Cary
`James Dominic Campodonico
`GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI,
`LLP
`275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
`San Francisco , CA 94111
`Phone: 415-986-5900
`Fax: 415-986-8054
`Email:acary@grsm.com
`Email: dcampodonico@grsm.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Rose Acre Farms,
`Inc.
`
`
`By:/s/ Jeffrey E. Tsai
`Jeffery E. Tsai (SBN 226081)
`John P. Phillips (SBN 154412)
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`555 Mission Street, Suite 2400
`San Francisco, California 94105-2933
`Phone: 415-836-2500
`Fax: 415-836-2501
`Email: jeff.tsai@us.dlapiper.com
`Email: john.phillips@us.dlapiper.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Hickman’s Egg
`Ranch, Inc.
`
`
`
`Craig S. Coleman (pro hac vice)
`Bryan K. Washburn (pro hac vice)
`FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE &
`REATH LLP
`2200 Wells Fargo Center,
`90 S. Seventh Street
`Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
`Phone: 612-766-6000
`Fax: 612-766-1600
`Email: craig.coleman@faegredrinker.com
`Email: bryan.washburn@faegredrinker.com
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Michael Foods, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/Kyle A. Casazza
`Kyle A. Casazza (SBN 254061)
`PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
`2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400
`Los Angeles, CA 9006
`Phone: 310-557-2900
`Fax: 310-557-2193
`Email:kcasazza@proskauer.com
`
`Christopher E. Ondeck (pro hac vice)
`Stephen Chuk (pro hac vice)
`PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
`1001 Pennsylvania Ave., Suite
`600S Washington, DC 20004
`Phone: 202-416-5865 Fax:202-416-
`5800
`Email: condeck@proskauer.com
`Email: schuk@proskauer.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Daybreak
`Foods, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`EGG PRODUCERS & MARKETERS’ NOTICE OF
`MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’
`COMPLAINT; MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-02733-EMC
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02733-EMC Document 171 Filed 08/04/20 Page 4 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`By:/s/ Bradley Love
`Bradley Love (SBN 251691)
`Kendall Millard (pro hac vice forthcoming)
`Alicia M. Barrs (pro hac vice forthcoming)
`BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
`11 South Meridian Street
`Indianapolis, IN 46204
`Phone: 317-236-1313
`Fax: 317-231-7433
`Email: blove@btlaw.com
`Email: kmillard@btlaw.com
`Email: abarrs@btlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Prairie Star Farms,
`LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:/s/ Jon F. Cieslak
`Aaron R Gott (SBN 314264)
`Jon F. Cieslak (SBN 268951)
`BONA LAW PC
`4275 Executive Square, Suite 200
`La Jolla, Ca 92037
`Phone: 858-964-4589
`Email: aaron.gott@bonalawpc.com
`Email: jon.cieslak@bonalawpc.com
`
`Alicia L Downey (pro hac vice)
`DOWNEY LAW LLC
`155 Federal Street, Suite 300
`Boston, MA 02110
`Phone: 617-444-9811
`Email: alicia@downeylawllc.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Opal Foods LLC
`
`
`
`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
`
`EGG PRODUCERS & MARKETERS’ NOTICE OF
`MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’
`COMPLAINT; MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-02733-EMC
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02733-EMC Document 171 Filed 08/04/20 Page 5 of 23
`Case 3:20-cv-02733-EMC Document 171 Filed 08/04/20 Page 5 of 23
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`1
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... - 1 -
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... - 1 -
`
`THE COMPLAINT’S FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ............................................................... - 2 -
`THE COMPLAINT’S FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ............................................................... - 2 -
`
`LEGAL ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. - 4 -
`LEGAL ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. - 4 -
`
`I.
`I.
`
`II.
`II.
`
`III.
`III.
`
`IV.
`IV.
`
`THE COMPLAINT FAILS TO PLEAD FACTS ESTABLISHING THE
`THE COMPLAINT FAILS TO PLEAD FACTS ESTABLISHING THE
`COURT’S JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS ........................... - 4 -
`COURT’S JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS ........................... - 4 -
`
`PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO PLEAD FACTS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT
`PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO PLEAD FACTS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT
`STANDING ..................................................................................................... - 5 -
`STANDING ..................................................................................................... - 5 -
`
`PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO PLEAD FACTS SUFFICIENT TO STATE A
`PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO PLEAD FACTS SUFFICIENT TO STATE A
`CLAIM ............................................................................................................. - 8 -
`CLAIM ............................................................................................................. - 8 -
`
`PLAINTIFFS MUST SEEK LEAVE OF COURT TO AMEND THEIR
`PLAINTIFFS MUST SEEK LEAVE OF COURT TO AMEND THEIR
`PLEADINGS .................................................................................................. - 11 -
`PLEADINGS .................................................................................................. - 11 -
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... - 13 -
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... - 13 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`KOOONONUI-PUJNt—t
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`NNNNNNNNND—KD—KD—KD—KD—KD—KD—KD—KD—KD—KOO\]O\LA4>WNHO\OOO\IO\LIIJ>WNHO
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`EGG PRODUCERS & MARKETERS’ NOTICE OF
`EGG PRODUCERS & MARKETERS’ NOTICE OF
`MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’
`MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’
`COMPLAINT; MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`COMPLAINT; MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`
`i
`i
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV—02733-EMC
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-02733-EMC
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 3:20-cv-02733-EMC Document 171 Filed 08/04/20 Page 6 of 23
`
`
`
`
`STATE CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Aleksick v. 7–Eleven, Inc.,
`205 Cal.App.4th 1176 (2012) .............................................................................................. 11
`
`Bank of the West v. Super. Ct.,
`2 Cal. 4th 1254 (1992) .......................................................................................................... 4
`
`Kwikset Corp. v. Super. Ct.,
`51 Cal. 4th 310 (2011) .......................................................................................................... 4
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`
`Allen v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC,
`No. 18-CV-03734-YGR, 2019 WL 4081901 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2019) ................................ 9
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) .............................................................................................................. 9
`
`Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t,
`901 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1990) ................................................................................................. 9
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) .......................................................................................................... 8, 9
`
`Diva Limousine, Ltd. v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`392 F. Supp. 3d 1074 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ................................................................................. 5
`
`Decker v. Mazda Motor of Am., Inc.,
`No. SACV110873AGRNBX, 2014 WL 12584387 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2014) ....................... 4
`
`Foyer v. Wells Fargo Bank,
`No. 320CV00591GPCAHG, 2020 WL 3893031 (S.D. Cal. July 10, 2020) ........................ 6, 8
`
`Hutson v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc.,
`No. C 09-1951 PJH, 2009 WL 3353312 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2009) ...................................... 11
`
`In re Google Assistant Privacy Litig.,
`No. 19-CV-04286-BLF, 2020 WL 2219022 (N.D. Cal. May 6, 2020) ............................. 5, 11
`
`Jones v. CertifiedSafety, Inc.,
`No. 17-CV-02229-EMC, 2019 WL 758308 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2019) .......................... 10, 11
`
`Kieffer v. Tundra Storage LLC,
`No. CIV. 14-3192 ADM/LIB, 2015 WL 5009012 (D. Minn. Aug. 21, 2015) ....................... 12
`
`EGG PRODUCERS & MARKETERS’ NOTICE OF
`MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’
`COMPLAINT; MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`
`ii
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-02733-EMC
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02733-EMC Document 171 Filed 08/04/20 Page 7 of 23
`
`
`
`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
`
`Lacano Investments, LLC v. Balash,
`765 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2014) ............................................................................................... 4
`
`Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Pub.,
`512 F.3d 522 (9th Cir. 2008) ............................................................................................... 11
`
`Lopez v. Stages of Beauty, LLC,
`307 F. Supp. 3d 1058 (S.D. Cal. 2018) .................................................................................. 9
`
`Lu v. Cent. Bank of Republic of China (Taiwan),
`610 F. App’x 674, 675 (9th Cir. 2015) .................................................................................. 4
`
`Mandani v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc.,
`No. 17-cv-07287-HSG, 2019 WL 652867 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2019) ..................................... 8
`
`Rubio v. Capital One Bank,
`613 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 2010) ............................................................................................... 6
`
`Saleh v. Bush,
`No. 13-CV-01124-JST, 2014 WL 2110231 (N.D. Cal. May 19, 2014) .................................. 4
`
`Sud v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,
`229 F. Supp. 3d 1075 (N.D. Cal. 2017) ............................................................................. 7, 8
`
`Swearingen v. Late July Snacks LLC,
`No. 13-CV-04324-EMC, 2017 WL 4641896 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2017)................................. 5
`
`Vagle v. Archstone Communities, LLC,
`No. CV 13-09044 RGK AJWX, 2014 WL 463532 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2014) .......................... 4
`
`Yu v. Design Learned, Inc.,
`No. 15-CV-05345-LB, 2016 WL 1621704 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2016) .............................. 9, 10
`
`STATE STATUTES
`
`California Unfair Competition Law, Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq. ............ passim
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204 .................................................................................................. 5
`
`California Penal Code § 396 ................................................................................................. 2, 11
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) .......................................................................... 5
`
`RULES
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) ...................................................................................... 9
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) ....................................................................................... 12
`
`EGG PRODUCERS & MARKETERS’ NOTICE OF
`MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’
`COMPLAINT; MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`
`iii
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-02733-EMC
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 3:20-cv-02733-EMC Document 171 Filed 08/04/20 Page 8 of 23
`
`
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) ................................................................................ 8, 9
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B) ....................................................................... 11, 12
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) .................................................................................. 12
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 20(a) ......................................................................... 10, 11
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`6 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1481 (3d
`ed. 2020) ............................................................................................................................. 12
`
`7 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1654 (3d
`ed. 2020) ............................................................................................................................. 10
`
`EGG PRODUCERS & MARKETERS’ NOTICE OF
`MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’
`COMPLAINT; MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`
`iv
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-02733-EMC
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02733-EMC Document 171 Filed 08/04/20 Page 9 of 23
`
`
`
`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
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiffs maintain that a temporary spike in the retail price of eggs following Governor
`
`Newsom’s COVID-19 emergency declaration means that someone somewhere in the supply chain
`
`must have violated the prohibition on price gouging in California Penal Code § 396, thereby
`
`violating California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Business & Professions Code § 17200, et
`
`seq. In the very first paragraph of the Complaint, however, Plaintiffs expressly admit that they have
`
`no facts or allegations regarding whether any specific Defendant purportedly engaged in price
`
`gouging and that they do not have a basis to name all Defendants: “Plaintiffs cannot assert that
`
`every defendant engaged in price gouging, but plaintiffs can and do assert some or all of these
`
`defendants illegally marked up egg prices. . . .” (ECF No. 1, Complaint ¶1.) Nowhere in the
`
`Complaint do Plaintiffs plead any basis for naming any of the Egg Producers & Marketers,1
`
`including alleging whether any of them sold eggs to a named retailer Defendant, sold eggs to any
`
`retailer in California, or made sales that violated Penal Code § 396.
`
`The Complaint should be dismissed for at least three reasons: (1) Plaintiffs fail to allege
`
`facts sufficient to justify the Court’s exercise of subject-matter jurisdiction over their claims;
`
`(2) Plaintiffs fail to allege facts showing that they possess standing under the UCL; and
`
`(3) Plaintiffs fail to allege that the Egg Producers & Marketers have sold any eggs to anyone
`
`connected with this lawsuit, much less engaged in conduct giving rise to a colorable claim of price
`
`gouging under Penal Code § 396.
`
`Plaintiffs’ improper approach to pleading is rendered worse by their refusal to timely amend,
`
`notwithstanding its obvious deficiencies. Plaintiffs have stated an intention to amend their
`
`Complaint, but the time to do so without leave of the Court has long since expired given the Rule
`
`12 motion filed by Defendant Save Mart Supermarkets on May 28, 2020. (See ECF No. 34.) Rather
`
`than attempting to fix their plainly deficient Complaint, Plaintiffs have unilaterally announced that
`
`they will wait until all Defendants have been put through the burden of filing motions to dismiss.
`
`27
`
`28
`
`FAEGRE DRINKER
`BIDDLE & REATH LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`
`1 Defendants Rose Acre Farms, Inc., Michael Foods, Inc., Hickman’s Egg Ranch, Inc., Daybreak
`Foods, Inc., Prairie Star Farms, LLC., and Opal Foods LLC.
`EGG PRODUCERS & MARKETERS’ NOTICE OF
`MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’
`COMPLAINT; MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-02733-EMC
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 3:20-cv-02733-EMC Document 171 Filed 08/04/20 Page 10 of 23
`
`
`(See ECF No. 65 (stating that at some unspecified time in the future Plaintiffs would amend their
`
`Complaint).) Plaintiffs’ tactics will upend multiple stipulations and Court orders establishing an
`
`orderly briefing schedule, cause unnecessary delay, and waste Defendants’ resources and judicial
`
`resources. Accordingly, the Egg Producers & Marketers respectfully request that the Court require
`
`Plaintiffs to substantiate a sound basis for granting leave to amend their Complaint and provide
`
`Defendants with an opportunity to explain why leave to amend should be denied. And should the
`
`Court grant this motion to dismiss before an Amended Complaint is filed, the Egg Producers &
`
`Marketers respectfully request that dismissal be with prejudice given the circumstances and record.
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`
`First, have Plaintiffs alleged facts supporting the Court’s exercise of subject-matter
`
`jurisdiction over this action. Second, have Plaintiffs alleged facts showing that they possess
`
`standing under the UCL. Third, have Plaintiffs plausibly alleged a violation of California Penal
`
`Code § 396, and thereby the UCL, against the Egg Producers & Marketers when Plaintiffs fail to
`
`make any specific allegations against them, including allegations about the basic elements of their
`
`claims.
`
`THE COMPLAINT’S FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Governor Gavin Newsom declared a state of
`
`emergency on March 4, 2020. (Complaint ¶ 3.) The novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19 has
`
`led to a global pandemic that has impacted all 50 states. (Id. ¶ 3.) Following the declaration of
`
`emergency, most states, including California, issued “stay-at-home and social distancing measures”
`
`that have affected “the vast majority of Americans” (id.), caused “extreme” economic effects, and
`
`dramatically altered American life (id. ¶ 4.). The stay-at-home orders have reorganized the
`
`distribution and consumption of food by closing bars, restaurants, and food service. (Id.)
`
`In the face of this extraordinary market upheaval, Plaintiffs do not allege that any of the
`
`Egg Producers & Marketers took any action to raise the price of eggs sold at wholesale. Far from
`
`making any such allegation, Plaintiffs admit that they have no knowledge of the pricing of the Egg
`
`Producers & Marketers. (Id. ¶ 5.) Indeed, Plaintiffs expressly reiterate that the Complaint “does not
`
`EGG PRODUCERS & MARKETERS’ NOTICE OF
`MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’
`COMPLAINT; MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-02733-EMC
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 3:20-cv-02733-EMC Document 171 Filed 08/04/20 Page 11 of 23
`
`
`assert that each and every defendant engaged in price-gouging.” (Id.) Plaintiffs instead merely
`
`“assert that, at a minimum, some of these defendants did so.” (Id.)
`
`Plaintiffs allege that egg prices “nearly tripled between the onset of the COVID-19
`
`pandemic and the end of March.” (Id. ¶ 6) They do not plead what date is meant by “the onset” of
`
`the pandemic or how that date relates to Governor Newsom’s declaration. (Id.) Nor do they explain
`
`the source or definition of “egg prices.” (Id.) Without explanation or any details, the Complaint
`
`claims that “egg prices” have remained more than 10% higher than prices prior to the declaration.
`
`(Id.) Plaintiffs later allege that egg prices rose 180% at some point during the state of emergency.
`
`(Id. ¶53.) Plaintiffs do not allege the specific egg prices of any retailer or Egg Producer & Marketer.
`
`Nor do they allege to whom any Egg Producer & Marketer sold eggs.
`
`Plaintiffs allege that the named putative class representatives purchased eggs from various
`
`retail grocers, many of whom have now been dismissed. (Id. ¶¶ 8-17.)2 The Complaint makes no
`
`allegations about the prices that any Plaintiff paid for eggs, the geographic location where they
`
`purchased eggs, the dates of purchase, the producers or the type, color, size, grade, or brands of the
`
`eggs Plaintiffs purchased, or what any retailer charged for such eggs before the declared emergency.
`
`(Id.) Instead, Plaintiffs allege only that they paid “grossly inflated price[s]” for “eggs” purchased
`
`at retail. (Id.)
`
`Rather than alleging that Plaintiffs purchased anything from the Egg Producers & Marketers,
`
`the Complaint asserts that “Plaintiffs’ purchases of eggs from retailers was [sic] part of a series of
`
`transactions that also included any other sale of the eggs that occurred between their being laid and
`
`their arrival at the point of retail sale.” (Id. ¶ 54.) As to the Egg Producers & Marketers, the
`
`Complaint alleges their states of incorporation, corporate citizenship, and the locations of their
`
`principal places of business. (Id. ¶¶ 18-32.) Those single paragraphs for each Egg Producer &
`
`Marketer are the entirety of the allegations in the Complaint against any of them. Collectively, the
`
`Complaint alleges that the Egg Producers & Marketers are involved in “egg production,
`
`distribution, and wholesale delivery, and are in the supply chain bringing eggs to market in the
`
`
`2 Plaintiffs have dismissed all but two of the retailers from whom they allegedly bought eggs.
`Compare Compl. ¶¶ 8-17 (listing the retailers), with ECF Nos. 4, 61, 108, 109, 127, 160, 162, 164,
`168 (dismissal leaving only retailers Raley’s and Stater Bros. Holdings, Inc).
`EGG PRODUCERS & MARKETERS’ NOTICE OF
`MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’
`COMPLAINT; MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-02733-EMC
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 3:20-cv-02733-EMC Document 171 Filed 08/04/20 Page 12 of 23
`
`
`Northern District of California.” (Id. ¶33.) That is the complete universe of facts alleged against
`
`the Egg Producers & Marketers.
`
`LEGAL ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`THE COMPLAINT FAILS TO PLEAD FACTS ESTABLISHING THE COURT’S
`JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS
`
`Plaintiffs assert federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1332. Under CAFA, the Court possesses diversity jurisdiction over this putative class
`
`action if Plaintiffs allege facts that, if true, establish an amount in controversy against each
`
`Defendant that exceeds $5 million. See Lacano Investments, LLC v. Balash, 765 F.3d 1068, 1071
`
`(9th Cir. 2014); Kwikset Corp. v. Super. Ct., 51 Cal. 4th 310, 336 (2011) (holding that UCL damages
`
`are limited to restitution, such that a plaintiff recovers what he or she wrongly paid to a specific
`
`defendant); Bank of the West v. Super. Ct., 2 Cal. 4th 1254, 1268 (1992) (holding restitution damages
`
`are limited to what a defendant wrongly received); Decker v. Mazda Motor of Am., Inc., No.
`
`SACV110873AGRNBX, 2014 WL 12584387, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2014) (concluding that
`
`UCL restitution was limited to money provided by the plaintiff to the defendant as a result of the
`
`UCL violation). Plaintiffs must allege facts establishing the required amount in controversy against
`
`each Defendant, because “[w]hile CAFA permits aggregation of claims of separate plaintiffs, see 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1332(d)(6), claims against multiple defendants can only be aggregated when the defendants
`
`are jointly liable.” Vagle v. Archstone Communities, LLC, No. CV 13-09044 RGK AJWX, 2014 WL
`
`463532, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2014) (citing Libby v. City Nat’l Bank, 592 F.2d 504, 510 (9th Cir.
`
`1978)). No such facts are pleaded here. Plaintiffs make no allegation of conspiracy (nor could they
`
`truthfully) and do not plead any legal claim capable of supporting joint-and-several liability. Nor
`
`have Plaintiffs alleged any facts suggesting that damages against any single Defendant may exceed
`
`$5 million; instead, the Complaint relies on an aggregated amount in controversy against all
`
`Defendants.3 (See Complaint ¶ 46.)
`
`3 The deficiency of the Complaint in this regard precludes allowing Plaintiffs to embark on a
`freewheeling fishing expedition for facts supporting subject-matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., Lu v.
`Cent. Bank of Republic of China (Taiwan), 610 F. App’x 674, 675 (9th Cir. 2015) (“Defendants’
`motion to dismiss mounted a facial attack on Lu’s jurisdictional allegations, so further discovery
`was not relevant to the motion.”); Saleh v. Bush, No. 13-CV-01124-JST, 2014 WL 2110231, at *1
`(N.D. Cal. May 19, 2014) (“In a facial attack, the challenger asserts that the allegations contained
`EGG PRODUCERS & MARKETERS’ NOTICE OF
`MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’
`COMPLAINT; MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-02733-EMC
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02733-EMC Document 171 Filed 08/04/20 Page 13 of 23
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Moreover, Plaintiffs do not even plead basic allegations about their citizenship—where
`
`each of the named Plaintiffs reside—necessary to establish minimal diversity under CAFA. (See
`
`Complaint ¶¶ 8-17.)4 And the class they seek to certify, “[a]ll consumers who purchased eggs in the
`
`state of California,” (id. ¶ 55), indicates that the local controversy exception to CAFA jurisdiction
`
`may also apply. See 18 U.S.C. §1332(d)(4)(A) (excepting cases from CAFA jurisdiction where,
`
`among other things, “two-thirds of the members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate are
`
`citizens of the State in which the class action was originally filed”). Here, the named Plaintiffs are
`
`all residents of California, so the local-controversy exception likely applies had Plaintiffs pleaded
`
`adequate facts to assess the issue. Thus, for these separate reasons, Plaintiffs have failed to meet
`
`10
`
`their burden to establish subject-matter jurisdiction. See Diva Limousine, Ltd. v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`
`11
`
`392 F. Supp. 3d at 1083.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`II.
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO PLEAD FACTS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT STANDING
`
`To pursue claims under California’s UCL, a plaintiff must plead and ultimately prove that
`
`he or she “has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of the unfair
`
`competition.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204 (emphasis added). See also Swearingen v. Late July
`
`Snacks LLC, No. 13-CV-04324-EMC, 2017 WL 4641896, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2017) (Chen,
`
`J.) (“Plaintiffs must prove that they have standing under the UCL, that is, that they are person[s]
`
`who ha[ve] suffered injury in fact and ha[ve] lost money or property as a result of the unfair
`
`competition.”) (citation and question marks omitted and emphasis in original).
`
`To satisfy the UCL’s standing requirement, a plaintiff must “‘(1) establish a loss or
`
`deprivation of money or property sufficient to qualify as injury in fact, i.e., economic injury, and
`
`(2) show that economic injury was the result of, i.e., caused by, the unfair business practice or false
`
`advertising that is the gravamen of the claim.’” In re Google Assistant Privacy Litig., No. 19-CV-
`
`04286-BLF, 2020 WL 2219022, at *27 (N.D. Cal. May 6, 2020) (quoting Kwikset Corp. v. Superior
`
`
`in a complaint are insufficient on their face to invoke federal jurisdiction” (quoting Safe Air for
`Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004)).
`4 See Diva Limousine, Ltd. v. Uber Techs., Inc., 392 F. Supp. 3d 1074, 1083 (N.D. Cal. 2019)
`(Chen, J.) (“Absent unusual circumstances, a party seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction should
`be able to allege affirmatively the actual citizenship of the relevant parties.” (quoting Kanter v.
`Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001)).
`EGG PRODUCERS & MARKETERS’ NOTICE OF
`MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’
`COMPLAINT; MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-02733-EMC
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 3:20-cv-02733-EMC Document 171 Filed 08/04/20 Page 14 of 23
`
`
`Court, 51 Cal. 4th 310, 322 (2011)); Foyer v. Wells Fargo Bank, No. 320CV00591GPCAHG, 2020
`
`WL 3893031, at *12 (S.D. Cal. July 10, 2020) (same). The “as a result of” language of California
`
`Business and Professions Code section 17204 thus imposes a causation element as an integral part
`
`of the standing requirement. See Rubio v. Capital One Bank, 6