Case 4:20-cv-04425-JSW Document 22 Filed 09/28/20 Page 1 of 26
`
`
`
`Naomi A. Igra (SBN 269095)
`naomi.igra@sidley.com
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`555 California Street
`Suite 200
`San Francisco, California 94104
`Telephone: (415) 772-1200
`Facsimile: (415) 772-7400
`
`Kara L. McCall (admitted pro hac vice)
`kmccall@sidley.com
`Daniel A. Spira (admitted pro hac vice)
`dspira@sidley.com
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`One South Dearborn Street
`Chicago, IL 60603
`Telephone: (312) 853-7000
`Facsimile: (312) 853-7036
`
`Attorneys for The Kraft Heinz Company
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`Sylvia Koh and David Green, on behalf of
`themselves and all others similarly situated,
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
` v.
`
`The Kraft Heinz Company,
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`Case No. 4:20-cv-04425-JSW
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`TO DISMISS CLASS ACTION
`COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FED. R.
`CIV. P. 8, 9(b), 12(b)(1), AND 12(b)(6);
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES
`
`Judge: Hon. Jeffrey S. White
`
`Date: December 18, 2020
`Time: 9:00 am
`Place: Courtroom 5
`*Oral Argument Requested
`
`Demand for Jury Trial
`
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FED. R.
`CIV. P. 8, 9(b), 12(b)(1), AND 12(b)(6); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`CASE NO. 4:20-cv-04425-JSW
`
`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 4:20-cv-04425-JSW Document 22 Filed 09/28/20 Page 2 of 26
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December 18, 2020, or as soon thereafter as counsel
`may be heard, before the Honorable Jeffrey S. White, in Courtroom 5 of the United States
`District Court for the Northern District of California, located at 1301 Clay Street, Oakland,
`California 94612, Defendant The Kraft Heinz Company will and hereby does move to dismiss in
`full Plaintiffs’ Class Action Complaint [Dkt. 1].
`This Motion is brought pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a), 9(b), 12(b)(1),
`and 12(b)(6) on the following grounds: (1) Plaintiffs’ claims are implausible and fail as a matter
`of law, because a reasonable consumer would not be deceived by the “natural cheese”
`representation contained on the product labeling at issue; (2) the doctrine of primary jurisdiction
`counsels this Court to leave the issue presented by the Complaint to the discretion of the U.S.
`Food and Drug Administration; (3) Plaintiffs lack standing to seek injunctive relief because they
`are under no imminent threat of future harm; and (4) Plaintiffs do not have standing to represent
`non-California putative class members or assert non-California consumer fraud claims.
`This Motion is based on this Notice of Motion, the attached Memorandum of Points and
`Authorities, the concurrently filed Request for Judicial Notice, the pleadings and filings in this
`action, and such further evidence or argument properly before the Court.
`
`Dated: September 28, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`
`By: /s/ Naomi A. Igra
`Naomi A. Igra (SBN 269095)
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`555 California Street
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Tel: (415) 772-1200
`Email: Naomi.Igra@sidley.com
`
`Kara L. McCall (admitted pro hac vice)
`kmccall@sidley.com
`Daniel A. Spira (admitted pro hac vice)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FED. R.
`CIV. P. 8, 9(b), 12(b)(1), AND 12(b)(6); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`CASE NO. 4:20-cv-04425-JSW
`
`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 4:20-cv-04425-JSW Document 22 Filed 09/28/20 Page 3 of 26
`
`dspira@sidley.com
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`One South Dearborn Street
`Chicago, IL 60603
`Telephone: (312) 853-7000
`Facsimile: (312) 853-7036
`
`Attorneys for Defendant The Kraft Heinz
`Company
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FED. R.
`CIV. P. 8, 9(b), 12(b)(1), AND 12(b)(6); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`CASE NO. 4:20-cv-04425-JSW
`
`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 4:20-cv-04425-JSW Document 22 Filed 09/28/20 Page 4 of 26
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES .............................................................1
`
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................1
`
`BACKGROUND......................................................................................................................3
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ..............................................................................................................5
`
`ARGUMENT ...........................................................................................................................6
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`THE CHALLENGED STATEMENT IS NOT FALSE OR DECEPTIVE TO
`A REASONABLE CONSUMER ...............................................................................6
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS SHOULD BE DISMISSED OR STAYED BECAUSE
`FDA IS ACTIVELY REVIEWING THE USE OF THE TERM “NATURAL”.......... 10
`
`PLAINTIFFS LACK STANDING TO PURSUE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`BECAUSE THEY FACE NO THREAT OF IMMINENT HARM ............................ 12
`
`THIS COURT SHOULD DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ NATIONWIDE CLASS
`ALLEGATIONS ..................................................................................................... 14
`
`CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................... 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FED. R.
`CIV. P. 8, 9(b), 12(b)(1), AND 12(b)(6); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`CASE NO. 4:20-cv-04225-JSW
`
`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 4:20-cv-04425-JSW Document 22 Filed 09/28/20 Page 5 of 26
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Algarin v. Maybelline, LLC,
`300 F.R.D. 444 (S.D. Cal. 2014)........................................................................................ 13
`
`Allee v. Medrano,
`416 U.S. 802 (1974).......................................................................................................... 14
`
`Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor,
`521 U.S. 591 (1997).......................................................................................................... 14
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009)............................................................................................................6
`
`Astiana v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc.,
`783 F.3d 753 (9th Cir. 2015) ............................................................................................. 12
`
`Astiana v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc.,
`905 F. Supp. 2d 1013 (N.D. Cal. 2012) .............................................................................. 11
`
`Balser v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc.,
`No. 13-5604, 2013 WL 6673617 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2013)..................................................9
`
`Bates v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.,
`511 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2007) ...............................................................................................6
`
`Becerra v. Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc.,
`945 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2019) ....................................................................................... 2, 10
`
`Becerra v. Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc.,
`No. 17-cv-05921, 2018 WL 3995832 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2018) ........................................ 10
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007)............................................................................................................5
`
`Bohac v. Gen. Mills, Inc.,
`No. 12-cv-05280, 2014 WL 1266848 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2014)...........................................6
`
`Carpenter v. PetSmart, Inc.,
`441 F. Supp. 3d 1028 (S.D. Cal. 2020) ........................................................................ 14, 15
`
`Castagnola v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`No. 11-cv-05772, 2012 WL 2159385 (N.D. Cal. June 13, 2012) ................................... 12, 13
`
`Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc.,
`631 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2011) ............................................................................................. 15
`
`ii
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FED. R.
`CIV. P. 8, 9(b), 12(b)(1), AND 12(b)(6); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`CASE NO. 4:20-cv-04225-JSW
`
`
`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 4:20-cv-04425-JSW Document 22 Filed 09/28/20 Page 6 of 26
`
`
`
`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
`
`Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.,
`534 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 2008) .............................................................................................7
`
`Cordes v. Boulder Brands USA, Inc.,
`No. 18-cv-6534, 2018 WL 6714323 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2018) ........................................... 13
`
`In re Ditropan XL Antitrust Litig.,
`529 F. Supp. 2d 1098 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ........................................................................ 14, 15
`
`Goldstein v. General Motors LLC,
`445 F. Supp. 3d 1000 (S.D. Cal. 2020) .............................................................................. 14
`
`Hodgers-Durgin v. de la Vina,
`199 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 1999) ........................................................................................... 12
`
`Johnson v. Nissan N. Am., Inc.,
`272 F. Supp. 3d 1168 (N.D. Cal. 2017) .............................................................................. 15
`
`Kane v. Chobani, LLC,
`645 F. App’x 593 (9th Cir. 2016) ...................................................................................... 12
`
`Kearns v. Ford Motor Co.,
`567 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) ......................................................................................... 6, 9
`
`Lavie v. Procter & Gamble Co.,
`105 Cal. App. 4th 496 (2003) ..............................................................................................7
`
`Mason v. Ashbritt, Inc.,
`No. 19-cv-01062, No. 18-cv-07181, 2020 WL 789570 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 17,
`2020)................................................................................................................................ 15
`
`Miss. Power & Light Co. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co.,
`532 F.2d 412 (5th Cir. 1976) ............................................................................................. 11
`
`Morales v. Unilever U.S., Inc.,
`No. 2:13-cv-2213, 2014 WL 1389613 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2014) .......................................... 14
`
`Newton v. Kraft Heinz Foods Co.,
`No. 1:16-cv-04578 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2018), slip op. [D.E. 59] .............................. 2, 5, 8, 9
`
`Pappas v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.,
`No. 16-612, 2016 WL 11703770 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2016)..................................................8
`
`Pelayo v. Nestle USA, Inc.,
`989 F. Supp. 2d 973 (C.D. Cal. 2013) .............................................................................. 7, 9
`
`Podpeskar v. Dannon Co.,
`No. 16-cv-8487, 2017 WL 6001845 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2017) ................................... 1, 2, 8, 9
`
`iii
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FED. R.
`CIV. P. 8, 9(b), 12(b)(1), AND 12(b)(6); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`CASE NO. 4:20-cv-04225-JSW
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-04425-JSW Document 22 Filed 09/28/20 Page 7 of 26
`
`
`
`Rahman v. Motts LLP,
`No. 13-cv-03482, 2018 WL 4585024 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2018) ........................................ 13
`
`Reiter v. Cooper,
`507 U.S. 258 (1993).......................................................................................................... 11
`
`Robinson v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg.,
`No. 16-cv-01619, 2016 WL 6524403 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2016) .......................................... 10
`
`Rosillo v. Annie’s Homegrown Inc.,
`No. 17-cv-02474, 2017 WL 5256345 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2017) ......................................... 12
`
`Stuart v. Cadbury Adams USA, LLC,
`458 F. App’x 689 (9th Cir. 2011) ........................................................................................8
`
`Syntek Semiconductor Co. v. Microchip Tech., Inc.,
`307 F.3d 775 (9th Cir. 2002) ............................................................................................. 11
`
`Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA,
`317 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2003) ......................................................................................... 6, 9
`
`Videtto v. Kellogg USA,
`No. 2:08-cv-01324, 2009 WL 1439086 (E.D. Cal. May 21, 2009) ........................................6
`
`Viggiano v. Johnson,
`No. 14-7250, 2016 WL 5110500 (C.D. Cal. June 21, 2016)................................................ 12
`
`Yu v. Dr. Pepper Snapple Grp., Inc.,
`No. 18-cv-06664, 2019 WL 2515919 (N.D. Cal. June 18, 2019) ......................................... 12
`
`Statutes
`
`7 U.S.C. § 1639. .......................................................................................................................9
`
`Rules and Regulations
`
`21 C.F.R. § 133.169..................................................................................................................3
`
`70 Fed. Reg. 60751 (Oct. 19, 2005) ...........................................................................................3
`
`80 Fed. Reg. 69905 (Nov. 12, 2015) ...................................................................................... 2, 5
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) ............................................................................................................... 1, 5
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)........................................................................................................... 1, 6, 9
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) ........................................................................................................ 1, 6
`
`iv
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FED. R.
`CIV. P. 8, 9(b), 12(b)(1), AND 12(b)(6); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`CASE NO. 4:20-cv-04225-JSW
`
`
`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 4:20-cv-04425-JSW Document 22 Filed 09/28/20 Page 8 of 26
`
`
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ........................................................................................................ 1, 5
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 ................................................................................................................... 14
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 82 ................................................................................................................... 14
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Use of the Term Natural on Food Labeling, FDA, available at
`https://www.fda.gov/food/food-labeling-nutrition/use-term-natural-food-
`labeling .......................................................................................................................... 5, 9
`
`Consumer Perceptions of Health and Natural Food Labels, available at
`https://static1.squarespace.com/static/502c267524aca01df475f9ec/t/5c4df494
`40ec9a53af435ab4/1548612761167/re............................................................................... 10
`
`Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42 Section 9.6.1 Natural and Processed
`Cheese Final Report for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (July 1997),
`available at https://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch09/bgdocs/b9s06-1.pdf ..........................4
`
`Consumer Reports Survey Group, Natural and Antibiotics Label Survey: 2015
`Nationally Representative Phone Survey, available at
`https://foodpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/Consumer-Reports-Natural-
`Food-Labels-Survey-Report.pdf ........................................................................................ 10
`
`
`
`
`v
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FED. R.
`CIV. P. 8, 9(b), 12(b)(1), AND 12(b)(6); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`CASE NO. 4:20-cv-04225-JSW
`
`
`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 4:20-cv-04425-JSW Document 22 Filed 09/28/20 Page 9 of 26
`
`
`
`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
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`Plaintiffs Sylvia Koh and David Green allege that the “natural cheese” description on The
`Kraft Heinz Company’s Natural Cheese products deceives consumers. However, Plaintiffs do
`not allege that any artificial or unnatural ingredients are added to the products at issue. Plaintiffs’
`claims are instead based on the attenuated theory that the products do not contain “natural
`cheese” because cows that were used to produce the milk that was used to produce the cheese
`were administered rbST (a growth hormone) at some point in their lifespans.
`(1) Plaintiffs’ attenuated theory regarding the meaning of “natural cheese” is implausible
`and inconsistent with the understanding of reasonable consumers. The dairy industry and U.S.
`Government use the term “natural cheese” to refer to cheese made from milk, as distinguished
`from “processed cheese.” See e.g., Request for Judicial Notice, Exhibit A, at 2-1. The products
`here are indisputably made directly from milk. Moreover, reasonable consumers do not interpret
`“natural cheese” to mean that several steps up the supply chain no cow was ever given a growth
`hormone. Indeed, “[t]here is no legal support for the idea that a cow that eats GMO feed or is
`subjected to hormones or various animal husbandry practices produces ‘unnatural’ products.”
`Podpeskar v. Dannon Co., 16-cv-8487, 2017 WL 6001845, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2017).
`(2) Even if Plaintiffs’ claims had merit, which they do not, the primary jurisdiction
`doctrine counsels this Court to leave the issue presented by Plaintiffs’ Complaint to the
`discretion of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Astiana v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc., 783
`F.3d 753, 761 (9th Cir. 2015).
`(3) Plaintiffs lack standing to seek injunctive relief, because they have not plausibly pled
`that they face an imminent threat of future injury. See Castagnola v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No.
`11-cv-05772, 2012 WL 2159385, at *5 (N.D. Cal. June 13, 2012).
`(4) Plaintiffs lack standing to represent a putative nationwide class because they have not
`alleged any injuries traceable to the laws of any state except California, which do not apply to
`non-California residents. Carpenter v. PetSmart, Inc., 441 F. Supp. 3d 1028, 1039 (S.D. Cal.
`2020).
`
`vi
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FED. R.
`CIV. P. 8, 9(b), 12(b)(1), AND 12(b)(6); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`CASE NO. 4:20-cv-04225-JSW
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-04425-JSW Document 22 Filed 09/28/20 Page 10 of 26
`
`
`
`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
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`The Kraft Heinz Company (“Kraft Heinz”) respectfully submits this Memorandum of
`Points and Authorities in Support of its Motion to Dismiss the Class Action Complaint [Dkt. 1]
`(“Complaint or Compl.”) pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a), 9(b), 12(b)(1), and
`12(b)(6).
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiffs Sylvia Koh and David Green allegedly bought eight—but challenge the
`labeling of 105—Kraft Natural Cheese products (collectively, the “Products”), asserting that the
`Products are misleadingly labeled as “natural.” Compl. ¶¶ 4–5; 20–21. The Products are not,
`however, labeled as “all natural,” “100% natural,” or as containing only natural ingredients;
`rather, they are labeled as “natural cheese.” For decades, the U.S. Government has recognized
`that “natural cheese” (which is cheese made directly from milk) is a term used to distinguish a
`product from “process cheese” (which is cheese, like Velveeta brand cheese, made from heating
`one or more natural cheeses and mixing them with an emulsifying agent).
`Plaintiffs do not dispute that the Products here constitute cheese made directly from milk.
`Moreover, Plaintiffs do not allege that any artificial or unnatural ingredients were ever added to
`any of the Products. Instead, Plaintiffs’ Complaint is based solely on their speculation that at an
`unspecified point in time recombinant bovine somatotropin (“rbST”) was administered to cows,
`those cows were used to produce milk, and that milk was subsequently used to produce Natural
`Cheese Products. Id. ¶¶ 5–8. Plaintiffs have no knowledge that the milk used to manufacture the
`Products they actually purchased came from cows that actually received rbST. Further, Plaintiffs
`provide no support for the baseless notion that reasonable consumers interpret the phrase
`“natural cheese” to mean that rbST has never been used at any point in the supply chain, and
`their attenuated theory—that once rbST is given to a cow, every downstream food product is
`somehow rendered unnatural—has been rightfully rejected by other courts. See e.g., Podpeskar
`v. Dannon Co., No. 16-cv-8478, 2017 WL 6001845, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2017) (plaintiff’s
`“claim is that, several steps back in the food chain, there may have been something unnatural
`1
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FED. R.
`CIV. P. 8, 9(b), 12(b)(1), AND 12(b)(6); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`CASE NO. 4:20-cv-04225-JSW
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-04425-JSW Document 22 Filed 09/28/20 Page 11 of 26
`
`
`
`ingested by a cow,” but “[t]here is no legal support for the idea that a cow that eats GMO feed or
`is subjected to hormones or various animal husbandry practices produces ‘unnatural’ products”).
`Here too, Plaintiffs’ Complaint should be dismissed for multiple reasons:
`First, Plaintiffs’ Complaint should be dismissed for failure to plead support for the
`conclusion on which each of their claims is wholly premised: that the Products’ “natural cheese”
`labeling is false or deceptive to a reasonable consumer. Indeed, the reasonable consumer
`standard applicable to Plaintiffs’ claims requires “more than a mere possibility that” the
`Products’ labels “might conceivably be misunderstood by some few consumers viewing [them]
`in an unreasonable manner,” and instead “requires a probability that a significant portion of”
`consumers could be misled. Becerra v. Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc., 945 F.3d 1225, 1228–29 (9th
`Cir. 2019) (internal quotations omitted). Reasonable consumers plainly do not interpret “natural
`cheese” to mean that several steps up the supply chain no cow was ever given a growth hormone.
`See, e.g., Podpeskar, 2017 WL 6001845, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2017); Newton v. Kraft Heinz
`Foods Co., No. 1:16-cv-04578, slip op. [D.E. 59] (Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”) Ex. D) at
`1, 16 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2018) (labeling was not deceptive where product was “derived from
`cows whose feed . . . might be subject to ‘non-natural’ accelerated milk production processes,”
`and “Plaintiff’s belief and conjecture as to how many degrees of separation from some GMO it
`takes to make a product’s ‘natural’ label deceptive or misleading is not adequate pleading”)
`(emphasis omitted). That is especially true where rbST is not actually present in the milk used to
`make the cheese, or in the cheese itself. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed.
`Second, alternatively, Plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed or stayed pursuant to the
`primary jurisdiction doctrine. The U.S. Food & Drug Administration (“FDA”) is undertaking an
`ongoing regulatory review of the use of the term “natural.” See Use of the Term “Natural” in the
`Labeling of Human Food Products; Request for Information and Comments, 80 Fed. Reg. 69905
`(Nov. 12, 2015). Plaintiffs’ request that this Court intrude on the regulatory terrain of FDA
`should therefore be rejected.
`
`2
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FED. R.
`CIV. P. 8, 9(b), 12(b)(1), AND 12(b)(6); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`CASE NO. 4:20-cv-04225-JSW
`
`
`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 4:20-cv-04425-JSW Document 22 Filed 09/28/20 Page 12 of 26
`
`
`
`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
`
`Third, Plaintiffs lack standing to seek injunctive relief because they have not plausibly
`pled that they face an imminent threat of future injury. Plaintiffs now know that certain Products
`are made with milk from cows that may have received rbST, and that others are not, pursuant to
`Kraft Heinz’s public transparency regarding the Products at issue. Compl. ¶¶ 4, 6. There is no
`risk that they will be misled—or even confused—in the future.
`Fourth, Plaintiffs lack standing to represent absent class members who reside outside of
`California, as Plaintiffs have not alleged injuries traceable to the state laws that govern those
`class members’ claims. Plaintiffs’ nationwide class claims should therefore be dismissed.
`BACKGROUND
`Plaintiffs’ Allegations and “Natural Cheese.” Kraft Heinz produces and markets various
`products labeled as “Natural Cheese.” See Compl. ¶ 4 n.2 (identifying 105 Products). Over an
`eight-year period, Plaintiff David Green, a California resident, allegedly purchased three such
`products in California: Shredded Sharp Cheddar, Shredded Mild Cheddar, and Shredded
`Mexican Style Four Cheese Products. Id. ¶¶ 17, 20. Over a five-year period, Plaintiff Sylvia Koh,
`also a California resident, allegedly purchased five such products in California: Shredded
`Mozzarella, Mozzarella String Cheese, Shredded Parmesan, Finely Shredded Parmesan, and
`Havarti Slice Products. Id. ¶ 18, 21. Neither Plaintiff purchased any of the other 97 Kraft Natural
`Cheese Products identified by Plaintiffs in their Complaint. Id. ¶ 4 n. 2.
`The term “natural cheese” has been used for decades to distinguish it from “process
`cheese.” Indeed, federal guidance and regulations describe “natural cheese” as being made
`directly from milk, while “process cheese” is defined as a combination of cheese commingled
`with other ingredients that impart unique properties, such as the ability to melt more rapidly
`when heated. See, e.g., 21 C.F.R. § 133.169 (defining “Pasteurized Process Cheese”); Cheeses
`and Related Cheese Products; Proposal to Permit the Use of Ultrafiltered Milk, 70 Fed. Reg.
`60751 (Oct. 19, 2005) (discussing “natural cheese” made directly from milk). As one federal
`agency explains, “[t]he modern manufacture of natural cheese consists of four basic steps:
`coagulating, draining, salting, and ripening. Process[] cheese manufacture incorporates extra
`3
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FED. R.
`CIV. P. 8, 9(b), 12(b)(1), AND 12(b)(6); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`CASE NO. 4:20-cv-04225-JSW
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-04425-JSW Document 22 Filed 09/28/20 Page 13 of 26
`
`
`
`steps, including cleaning, blending, and melting. . . . Several varieties of natural cheese may be
`mixed, and powdered milk, whey, cream or butter, and water may be added [to make process
`cheese].”1
`It is undisputed that each of the 105 Products identified in Plaintiffs’ Complaint contains
`natural cheese—cheese made from milk. Id. ¶¶ 4-6. Moreover, Plaintiffs make no allegations
`whatsoever that any artificial, synthetic, bioengineered, or unnatural ingredients have ever been
`added to any of the Products. Instead, Plaintiffs allege only that rbST, a growth hormone, is
`given to cows at some unspecified point in time, milk is then derived from those cows, and
`cheese is then derived from that milk. Compl. ⁋ 5. Plaintiffs assert without any logical basis that
`every cheese product resulting from this process (and presumably every product emanating
`downstream from any cow that ever received rbST) cannot properly be labeled as “natural.” See
`id.2
`
`Accordingly, Plaintiffs contend that Kraft Heinz’s labeling of its Products as “natural
`cheese” is false, deceptive, and misleading. Id. ⁋ 5. Based on these allegations, Plaintiffs assert
`causes of action for alleged violations of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Count I),
`False Advertising Law (Count II), and Unfair Competition Law (Count III), as well as alleged
`violations of non-California State Consumer Protection Statutes (Count IV), Breach of Express
`Warranty (Count V), and Unjust Enrichment (Count VI). Id. ¶¶ 71–114. Plaintiffs assert Counts
`
`
`1 Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42 Section 9.6.1 Natural and Processed Cheese Final
`Report for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (July 1997), available at
`https://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch09/bgdocs/b9s06-1.pdf (RJN Ex. A) (emphasis added).
`See also id. (“Popular types of natural cheeses include . . . hard (e.g., Colby, Cheddar) . . . and
`pasta filata (stretched curd, e.g., Mozzarella, Provolone). Examples of processed cheeses include
`American cheese and various cheese spreads, which are made by blending two or more varieties
`of cheese or blending portions of the same type of cheese that are at different stages of
`ripeness.”).
`
` 2
`
` Plaintiffs acknowledge that “many of the Products are now made from milk produced without
`the artificial hormone rbST,” but assert that other Products continue to be produced using this
`process. Id. ¶ 6.
`
`4
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FED. R.
`CIV. P. 8, 9(b), 12(b)(1), AND 12(b)(6); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`CASE NO. 4:20-cv-04225-JSW
`
`
`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 4:20-cv-04425-JSW Document 22 Filed 09/28/20 Page 14 of 26
`
`
`
`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
`
`I, II, and III on behalf of a putative “California Subclass,” and assert Counts IV, V, and VI on
`behalf of a putative nationwide class of consumers.
`FDA Oversight of “Natural” Claims. In November 2015, FDA began actively reviewing
`“the use of the term ‘natural’ in the labeling of human food products[.]” Use of the Term
`“Natural” in the Labeling of Human Food Products; Request for Information and Comments, 80
`Fed. Reg. 69905 at 69905. FDA began this review “[b]ecause of the changing landscape of food
`ingredients and production,” noting multiple requests for guidance from both consumers and
`federal courts, which have seen a flurry of “litigation between private parties” on this very issue.
`Use of the Term Natural on Food Labeling, FDA, available at https://www.fda.gov/food/food-
`labeling-nutrition/use-term-natural-food-labeling (RJN Ex. B); 80 Fed. Reg. at 69905.
`Although FDA has not yet established a formal definition of the term “natural,” FDA
`does “have a longstanding policy concerning the use of ‘natural’ in human food labeling. The
`FDA has considered the term ‘natural’ to mean that nothing artificial or synthetic . . . has been
`included in, or has been added to, a food that would not normally be expected to be in that food.
`However, this policy was not intended to address food production methods, such as the use of
`pesticides, nor did it explicitly address food processing or manufacturing methods[.]” Use of the
`Term Natural on Food Labeling, FDA, available at https://www.fda.gov/food/food-labeling-
`nutrition/use-term-natural-food-labeling (emphasis added) (RJN Ex. B); 80 Fed. Reg. at 69906;
`see also Newton, No. 1:16-cv-04578, slip op. (RJN Ex. D) at 16 (“FDA has issued unofficial
`guidance suggesting food products are ‘not natural’ only where they contain ‘added color,
`artificial flavors, or synthetic substances’”).
`LEGAL STANDARD
`Rule 8 requires a Complaint to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing
`that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A complaint must be dismissed
`under Rule 12(b)(6) if it does not “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl.
`Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S