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
`
`FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE &
`REATH LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`MINNEAPOLIS
`
`Case 3:20-cv-06533-RS Document 29 Filed 01/04/21 Page 1 of 25
`
`
`
`
`
`FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
`Rita Mansuryan (CA Bar No. 323034)
`rita.mansuryan@faegredrinker.com
`1800 Century Park East, Suite 1500
`Los Angeles, California 90067
`Telephone: (310) 203-4000
`Facsimile: (310) 229-1285
`
`Sarah L. Brew (admitted pro hac vice)
`sarah.brew@faegredrinker.com
`Tyler A. Young (admitted pro hac vice)
`tyler.young@faegredrinker.com
`Rory F. Collins (admitted pro hac vice)
`rory.collins@faegredrinker.com
`2200 Wells Fargo Center
`90 South Seventh Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Phone: (612) 766-7000
`Fax: (612) 766-1600
`
`Counsel for Defendant
`McDonald’s Corporation
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Eugina Harris, individually, and on behalf
`of all those similarly situated,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`McDonald’s Corporation,
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 3:20-cv-06533-RS
`DEFENDANT MCDONALD’S
`CORPORATION’S NOTICE OF
`MOTION AND MOTION TO
`DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S
`COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF
`POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
`SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`Date: February 18, 2021
`Time: 1:30 p.m.
`Courtroom: 3, 17th Floor
`
`Complaint Filed: September 17, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT MCDONALD’S CORPORATION’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:20-CV-06533-RS
`
`

`

`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
`
`FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE &
`REATH LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`MINNEAPOLIS
`
`Case 3:20-cv-06533-RS Document 29 Filed 01/04/21 Page 2 of 25
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on February 18, 2021 at 1:30 p.m., or as soon
`thereafter as this matter may be heard, at the United States District Court for the Northern
`District of California, in Courtroom 3, located at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco,
`California before the Honorable Richard Seeborg, Defendant McDonald’s Corporation
`will and hereby does move for an order dismissing Plaintiff Eugina Harris’s Complaint
`pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`This motion is made pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules
`of Civil Procedure on the grounds that Plaintiff lacks standing to seek injunctive relief and
`the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
`This motion is based upon this Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss, the
`attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the reply papers, the pleadings on file,
`and such other evidence and argument as the Court may allow.
`
`Dated: January 4, 2021
`
`
`FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH
`LLP
`
`/s/Sarah L. Brew
`By:
`Sarah L. Brew
`Tyler A. Young
`Rory F. Collins
`Rita Mansuryan
`Attorneys for Defendant
`McDonald’s Corporation
`
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:20-CV-06533-RS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06533-RS Document 29 Filed 01/04/21 Page 3 of 25
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1
`BACKGROUND AND STATEMENT OF FACTS ....................................................................... 2
`ISSUES TO BE DECIDED ............................................................................................................. 4
`LEGAL STANDARD ...................................................................................................................... 5
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................... 5
`I.
`Plaintiff Fails to State Any Actionable Claim Under the UCL, FAL, or CLRA. ............. 5
`A. The FDA Regulations Cited in the Complaint Are Inapplicable and
`Irrelevant. ................................................................................................................. 5
`Plaintiff Has Not Plausibly Alleged that Reasonable Consumers Are
`Deceived. .................................................................................................................. 6
`Plaintiff Lacks Standing Under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA Because She Has Not
`Plausibly Alleged Economic Injury. ............................................................................... 11
`III. Plaintiff’s CLRA Claim for Damages Must Be Dismissed Because Plaintiff
`Failed to Provide Pre-Suit Notice. .................................................................................. 12
`IV. Plaintiff’s UCL, FAL, and CLRA Claims Sound in Equity and Must Be
`Dismissed Because Plaintiff Has an Adequate Remedy at Law. .................................... 14
`V. Plaintiff Lacks Standing to Seek Injunctive Relief. ........................................................ 16
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................. 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`II.
`
`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
`
`FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE &
`REATH LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`MINNEAPOLIS
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:20-CV-06533-RS
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06533-RS Document 29 Filed 01/04/21 Page 4 of 25
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Anderson v. Apple Inc.,
`2020 WL 6710101 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2020) .................................................................. 15
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ............................................................................................................ 5
`
`Babaian v. Dunkin’ Brands Grp. Inc.,
`No. 17-4890, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98673 (C.D. Cal. June 12, 2018) ..................... 11, 12
`
`Becerra v. Dr. Pepper/Seven Up, Inc.,
`945 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2019) ......................................................................................... 7, 8
`
`Bush v. Mondelez Int’l, Inc.,
`2016 WL 7324990 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2016)................................................................... 10
`
`Cattie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
`504 F. Supp. 2d 939 (S.D. Cal. 2007) ......................................................................... 13, 14
`
`Clark v. Westbrae Natural, Inc.,
`2020 WL 7043879 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2020).............................................................. passim
`
`Colella v. Atkins Nutritionals, Inc.,
`348 F. Supp. 3d 120 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) ......................................................................... 11, 12
`
`Cordes v. Boulder Brands USA, Inc.,
`2018 WL 6714323 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2018) ................................................................... 17
`
`Cosgrove v. Blue Diamond Growers,
`2020 WL 7211218 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2020) ............................................................... 1, 8, 9
`
`Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.,
`889 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2018) ................................................................................. 11, 16, 17
`
`Ebner v. Fresh, Inc.,
`838 F.3d 958 (9th Cir. 2016) ......................................................................................... 6, 10
`
`Gilchrist v. Joshua,
`2017 WL 2123640 (S.D. Cal. May 16, 2017) ..................................................................... 5
`
`Henderson v. Gruma Corp.,
`2011 WL 1362188 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2011) ..................................................................... 9
`
`Henderson v. J.M. Smucker Co.,
`2011 WL 1050637 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2011)................................................................... 13
`
`FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE &
`REATH LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`MINNEAPOLIS
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`Case No. 3:20-CV-06533-RS
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06533-RS Document 29 Filed 01/04/21 Page 5 of 25
`
`
`
`In re MacBook Keyboard Litig.,
`2020 WL 6047253 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2020) ................................................................... 15
`
`Izquierdo v. Mondelez Int’l, Inc.,
`2016 WL 6459832 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 26, 2016) .................................................................... 11
`
`Jones v. Porsche Cars N. Am., Inc.,
`2015 WL 11995257 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2015) ................................................................. 13
`
`Joslin v. Clif Bar & Co.,
`2019 WL 5690632 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2019) .................................................................. 18
`
`Kearns v. Ford Motor Co.,
`567 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) ............................................................................................. 5
`
`Keilholtz v. Superior Fireplace Co.,
`2009 WL 839076 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2009) .................................................................... 14
`
`Laster v. T-Mobile United States, Inc.,
`407 F. Supp. 2d 1181 (S.D. Cal. 2005) ....................................................................... 13, 14
`
`Mort v. United States,
`86 F.3d 890 (9th Cir. 1996) ............................................................................................... 15
`
`Myers-Taylor v. Ornua Foods N. Am., Inc.,
`2019 WL 424703 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2019) .......................................................................... 5
`
`Nat’l Private Truck Council, Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Comm’n,
`515 U.S. 582 (1995) .......................................................................................................... 16
`
`NEI Contracting & Eng’g, Inc. v. Hanson Aggregates Pac. Sw., Inc.,
`926 F.3d 528 (9th Cir. 2019) ............................................................................................. 16
`
`O’Shea v. Littleton,
`414 U.S. 488 (1974) .................................................................................................... 15, 16
`
`Pelayo v. Nestle USA, Inc.,
`989 F. Supp. 2d 973 (C.D. Cal. 2013) ........................................................................... 7, 12
`
`Pelman v. McDonald’s Corp.,
`237 F. Supp. 2d 512 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) ................................................................................. 6
`
`Pichardo v. Only What You Need, Inc.,
`2020 WL 6323775 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2020) ............................................................. passim
`
`Red v. Kraft Foods, Inc.,
`2012 WL 5504011 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2012) ................................................................. 7, 9
`
`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
`
`FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE &
`REATH LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`MINNEAPOLIS
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`Case No. 3:20-CV-06533-RS
`
`

`

`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
`
`FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE &
`REATH LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`MINNEAPOLIS
`
`Case 3:20-cv-06533-RS Document 29 Filed 01/04/21 Page 6 of 25
`
`
`
`Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp.,
`971 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2020) ................................................................................. 14, 15, 16
`
`Steele v. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc.,
`2020 WL 3975461 (S.D.N.Y. July 14, 2020) .......................................................... 1, 7, 8, 9
`
`Summit Technology Inc. v. High-Line Medical Instruments Co.,
`922 F. Supp. 299 (C.D. Cal. 1996) .................................................................................... 12
`
`United States v. Elias,
`921 F.2d 870 (9th Cir. 1990) ............................................................................................. 16
`
`Victor v. R.C. Bigelow, Inc.,
`2014 WL 1028881 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2014) .................................................................. 14
`
`Von Grabe v. Sprint PCS,
`312 F. Supp. 2d 1285 (S.D. Cal. 2003) ....................................................................... 13, 14
`
`Webber v. McDonald’s Corporation,
`No. 7:20-cv-02058 (S.D.N.Y.) ...................................................................................... 1, 18
`
`Whitehead v. Shattuck,
`138 U.S. 146 (1891) .......................................................................................................... 15
`
`Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co.,
`552 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2008) ............................................................................................... 6
`
`Workman v. Plum Inc.,
`141 F. Supp. 3d 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ............................................................................... 7
`
`Yothers v. JFC Int’l, Inc.,
`2020 WL 5015262 (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2020) ................................................................... 17
`
`Zaback v. Kellogg Sales Co.,
`2020 WL 6381987 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2020) .................................................................... 15
`
`STATE CASES
`
`Hill v. Roll Int’l Corp.,
`195 Cal. App. 4th 1295 (2011) ............................................................................................ 7
`
`In re Vioxx Class Cases,
`180 Cal. App. 4th 116 (2009) ............................................................................................ 15
`
`Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court,
`51 Cal. 4th 310 (2011) ....................................................................................................... 11
`
`Lavie v. Procter & Gamble Co.,
`105 Cal. App. 4th 496 (2003) .......................................................................................... 6, 7
`iv
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`Case No. 3:20-CV-06533-RS
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06533-RS Document 29 Filed 01/04/21 Page 7 of 25
`
`
`
`Nationwide Biweekly Admin., Inc. v. Superior Court of Alameda Cty.,
`9 Cal. 5th 279 (2020) ......................................................................................................... 14
`
`Outboard Marine Corp. v. Super. Ct.,
`52 Cal. App. 3d 30 (1975) ................................................................................................. 13
`
`People v. Cruz,
`12 Cal. 3d 562 (1974) ........................................................................................................ 13
`
`Richardson v. City of San Diego,
`193 Cal. App. 2d 648 (1961) ............................................................................................. 13
`
`Shaeffer v. Califia Farms, LLC,
`44 Cal. App. 5th 1125 (2020) ............................................................................................ 11
`
`STATE STATUTES
`
`California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal Civ. Code § 1750 et seq. ..................... passim
`
`False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 et seq. ..................................... passim
`
`Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. .................................. passim
`
`RULES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 ........................................................................................................................ 5
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 ...................................................................................................................... 5
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`21 C.F.R. § 101.9(j) ................................................................................................................... 6
`
`21 C.F.R. § 101.11 .................................................................................................................... 6
`
`21 C.F.R. § 135.110(f)(2)(iii) .................................................................................................. 10
`
`
`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
`
`FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE &
`REATH LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`MINNEAPOLIS
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`Case No. 3:20-CV-06533-RS
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06533-RS Document 29 Filed 01/04/21 Page 8 of 25
`
`
`
`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
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiff Eugina Harris admits that McDonald’s “vanilla” soft serve cone (the “Product”)
`tastes like vanilla and contains vanilla. Yet she claims that by describing the Product as
`“vanilla”—for example, calling it a “Vanilla Cone”—McDonald’s misleads consumers into
`believing that the Product’s vanilla flavor comes exclusively from vanilla beans. This claim is
`utterly implausible.
`Nonetheless, Plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. Sheehan, has filed approximately 110 lawsuits over
`the past 18 months asserting substantially the same claim against other vanilla-flavored foods and
`beverages. Mr. Sheehan filed most of these cases in New York but has recently filed several cases
`in California. This case, for example, mirrors an ongoing case also challenging McDonald’s
`vanilla soft serve, which Plaintiff’s counsel filed in March 2020. Webber v. McDonald’s Corp.,
`No. 7:20-cv-02058 (S.D.N.Y.). In Webber, Mr. Sheehan initially sought to represent a class of
`California consumers, but after McDonald’s filed its required pre-motion letter explaining why
`the complaint fails as a matter of law and should be dismissed, he limited Webber to consumers in
`New York and commenced this action.
`Mr. Sheehan is shifting his focus to California in response to a series of recent New York
`decisions holding that these vanilla claims fail as a matter of law because no reasonable consumer
`would interpret “vanilla” statements on a product in the way the plaintiffs claim they did. See
`Steele v. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc., 2020 WL 3975461, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 14, 2020);
`Pichardo v. Only What You Need, Inc., 2020 WL 6323775, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2020);
`Cosgrove v. Blue Diamond Growers, 2020 WL 7211218, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2020).
`California law compels the same result. For example, in Clark v. Westbrae Natural, Inc.,
`2020 WL 7043879, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2020), Judge Corley concluded that “[t]he word
`‘vanilla’ itself does not suggest to the reasonable consumer that the flavor comes exclusively
`from the vanilla bean.” Because the “vanilla” soymilk label at issue there did not contain any
`other words or pictures suggesting that the vanilla flavor is derived exclusively from the vanilla
`bean, plaintiff’s claims did not pass the reasonable consumer test. Id.
`
`FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE &
`REATH LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`MINNEAPOLIS
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`Case No. 3:20-CV-06533-RS
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06533-RS Document 29 Filed 01/04/21 Page 9 of 25
`
`
`
`That legal conclusion applies equally here, as is vividly confirmed by consumers’
`responses to Mr. Sheehan’s firm’s Facebook post: “Does your Vanilla Soft Serve Ice Cream
`contain real vanilla? Not according to class-action lawsuits and investigations.” (attached as
`Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Sarah Brew). Of the many comments visible on July 7, 2020, none
`support Plaintiff’s allegation that consumers think “vanilla” means the Product’s vanilla flavor is
`derived exclusively from the vanilla plant, instead of simply denoting the Product’s vanilla flavor.
`The overwhelming majority of comments reject or ridicule that proposition, on which this lawsuit
`is based.
`All of Plaintiff’s claims fail as a matter of law and should be dismissed. First, for the
`reasons explained in Clark, no reasonable consumer would understand “Vanilla Cone” to mean
`that the Product is flavored exclusively with vanilla from the vanilla plant. Second, Plaintiff has
`failed to plausibly allege that the Product carries a “price premium” and thus has not alleged an
`economic injury as required to have standing under California’s consumer protection statutes.
`Third, Plaintiff’s claim for damages under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act must be dismissed
`because Plaintiff failed to provide the required pre-suit notice. Fourth, Plaintiff’s claims for
`equitable relief must be dismissed because Plaintiff would have an adequate remedy at law.
`Finally, to the extent any claim survives, Plaintiff lacks standing to seek injunctive relief because,
`having discovered the “truth” about the Product, Plaintiff does not face a risk of future injury.
`BACKGROUND AND STATEMENT OF FACTS
`Although the Complaint repeatedly references the Product’s “labeling,” unlike the
`products that have been the target of many of Mr. Sheehan’s lawsuits, McDonald’s soft serve
`vanilla cone does not have a label. Instead, the Product is displayed on some McDonald’s menu
`boards in restaurants and drive-thru locations and on self-order kiosks. The way the Product is
`presented varies by location. The menu boards in some McDonald’s restaurants and drive-thrus
`do not mention the Product’s flavor at all—they simply list “Cone,” along with the price and
`calories. At other locations, the menu boards list “Vanilla Cone.” The Complaint includes the
`following image of a “Vanilla Cone” from a McDonald’s self-order kiosk, which shows what
`
`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
`
`FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE &
`REATH LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`MINNEAPOLIS
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`Case No. 3:20-CV-06533-RS
`
`

`

`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
`
`FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE &
`REATH LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`MINNEAPOLIS
`
`Case 3:20-cv-06533-RS Document 29 Filed 01/04/21 Page 10 of 25
`
`
`
`some consumers see before ordering the Product. (Compl., ECF No. 1, at 2.)
`
`Plaintiff does not allege that McDonald’s makes any other representations about vanilla
`and the Product—for example, no images of vanilla beans and no statement that the Product is
`“made with vanilla.” Even consumers who seek out the Product’s ingredient list online will not
`find another reference to vanilla, only “natural flavor.” (Id. ¶ 38 (reproducing the Product’s
`ingredient list as shown on McDonald’s website).)
`Plaintiff claims that the “Vanilla” in “Vanilla Cone” signals to consumers that “the vanilla
`flavor in the Product was only from vanilla beans and would come only from the vanilla plant.”
`(Id. ¶ 16.) She alleges that this “representation” is misleading because, according to the purported
`results of a gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (“GC-MS”) analysis commissioned by her
`counsel, the Product contains added vanillin1 from non-vanilla sources. (Id. ¶ 43.) Plaintiff does
`not dispute that the Product contains vanilla—in fact, she implicitly concedes that it does. (See id.
`¶ 50.) Rather, she complains that the Product contains “less vanilla than consumers expect,” (id. ¶
`4), but notably fails to allege how much vanilla consumers would expect in the Product or how
`much vanilla the Product contains.
`
`
`1 Vanillin is the main flavor component of vanilla. Pichardo, 2020 WL 6323775, at *1 n.3.
`Vanillin can be derived from vanilla beans and from other natural sources. (See Compl. ¶ 51.)
`
`3
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`Case No. 3:20-CV-06533-RS
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06533-RS Document 29 Filed 01/04/21 Page 11 of 25
`
`
`
`Plaintiff alleges that she purchased the Product “regularly and consistently” during 2019
`and 2020 based on McDonald’s description of the Product as “Vanilla.” (Id. ¶¶ 12, 15-16.) She
`further alleges that she “believed that the vanilla flavor in the Product was only from vanilla
`beans” (id. ¶ 16) and that she “sought a product with a materially greater amount of vanilla than it
`actually contained.” (Id. ¶ 61.) She does not allege how much she paid for the Product, but she
`claims that McDonald’s charges a “price premium” (id. ¶ 7) and “significantly more per ounce”
`than other similar products (which she does not identify) that do not claim to be “Vanilla.” (Id. ¶
`66.) The image from a McDonald’s self-order kiosk displays a price of $1.69. (Id. at 2.)
`Plaintiff asserts four causes of action: violation of the “unlawful” prong of the Unfair
`Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. (“UCL”); violation of the “unfair and
`fraudulent” prong of the UCL; violation of the False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §
`17500 et seq. (“FAL”); and violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal Civ.
`Code § 1750 et seq. (“CLRA”). All fail as a matter of law for multiple reasons.
`ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`1.
`Should Plaintiff’s claim be dismissed because reasonable consumers would not
`understand “Vanilla” as used to describe McDonald’s soft serve on some menu boards and self-
`order kiosks (e.g. “Vanilla Cone”) to mean that the Product derives its flavor exclusively from the
`vanilla plant, such that Plaintiff fails to state a claim under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA?
`2.
`Does Plaintiff fail to plausibly allege an economic injury, such that Plaintiff lacks
`statutory standing to pursue claims under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA?
`3.
`Is Plaintiff’s claim for damages under the CLRA barred because she failed to send
`the required pre-suit notice to McDonald’s?
`4.
`Should the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s UCL and FAL claims and her CLRA claim
`for equitable relief because Plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law?
`5.
`Does Plaintiff lack standing to seek injunctive relief because she fails to plausibly
`allege an imminent risk of future injury?
`
`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
`
`FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE &
`REATH LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`MINNEAPOLIS
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`Case No. 3:20-CV-06533-RS
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06533-RS Document 29 Filed 01/04/21 Page 12 of 25
`
`
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must “contain sufficient
`factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Gilchrist v.
`Joshua, 2017 WL 2123640, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 16, 2017) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
`662, 678 (2009)). Facts indicating the “‘mere possibility of misconduct’. . . fall short of meeting
`this plausibility standard.” Id. at *2 (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). “Determining whether a
`complaint states a plausible claim for relief . . . requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial
`experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (emphasis added).
`In addition, Rule 9(b)’s heightened requirements apply to consumer protection claims like
`Plaintiff’s that sound in fraud. See Myers-Taylor v. Ornua Foods N. Am., Inc., 2019 WL 424703,
`at *3-4 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2019) (citing Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120, 1125 (9th Cir.
`2009)). Because Plaintiff alleges “a unified course of fraudulent conduct,” her complaint “as a
`whole must satisfy the particularly requirement.” Kearns, 567 F.3d at 1125.
`ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`Plaintiff Fails to State Any Actionable Claim Under the UCL, FAL, or CLRA.
`Plaintiff’s claims under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA fail as a matter of law for the
`fundamental reason that she has not plausibly alleged any unlawful or deceptive business
`practice. First, the FDA labeling regulations that she discusses at length in the Complaint have no
`application to the Product, which has no label and is served in quick-service restaurants for
`immediate consumption. To the extent Plaintiff is relying on these regulations as a predicate for
`her UCL “unlawful” claim or to bolster the plausibility of her claims, Plaintiff’s reliance is
`misplaced. Second, Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged that reasonable consumers would be
`deceived by McDonald’s description of the Product as “Vanilla,” as several other courts have
`recently held when considering substantially similar allegations.
`
`A.
`
`The FDA Regulations Cited in the Complaint Are Inapplicable and
`Irrelevant.
`The Complaint wades deep into the FDA flavor labeling regulations (and Plaintiff’s
`counsel’s interpretation of them) that apply to packaged ice cream. For example, the Complaint
`
`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
`
`FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE &
`REATH LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`MINNEAPOLIS
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`Case No. 3:20-CV-06533-RS
`
`

`

`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
`
`FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE &
`REATH LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`MINNEAPOLIS
`
`Case 3:20-cv-06533-RS Document 29 Filed 01/04/21 Page 13 of 25
`
`
`
`describes the “three categories” of ice cream flavor names that may be used on the principal
`display panel of a carton of ice cream (Compl. ¶ 31), opines that natural flavors may need to be
`described as artificial in some circumstances (id. ¶ 32), and claims that vanilla flavorings are the
`only flavorings subject to a standard of identity (id. ¶ 27).
`None of these regulations have any bearing on the issues in this case. The Product does not
`have a package or label, and the cited regulations do not apply to food served in quick-service
`restaurants like McDonald’s. The FDA labeling regulations specifically exempt foods “served in
`restaurants” or “in other establishments in which food is served for immediate human consumption”
`including “ice cream shops.” 21 C.F.R. § 101.9(j)(2)(i)-(ii); see also Pelman v. McDonald’s Corp.,
`237 F. Supp. 2d 512, 537 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (distinguishing a Haagen–Daaz pint of ice cream from
`food served at McDonald’s, and noting that the latter is exempt from labeling regulations
`promulgated under the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990).2
`Because the cited regulations do not apply to the Product, the Product cannot possibly
`violate the regulations. Accordingly, to the extent that Plaintiff’s UCL “unlawful” claim (Count I)
`is predicated on these regulations, it fails to state a claim.3 (See Compl. ¶¶ 91-93.)
`
`B.
`Plaintiff Has Not Plausibly Alleged that Reasonable Consumers Are Deceived.
`Claims under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA are governed by the “reasonable consumer”
`standard. Ebner v. Fresh, Inc., 838 F.3d 958, 965 (9th Cir. 2016). Under this standard, Plaintiff
`must “show that ‘members of the public are likely to be deceived.’” Id. (quoting Williams v.
`Gerber Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 934, 938 (9th Cir. 2008)). This requires more than a “mere
`possibility” that McDonald’s use of the term “Vanilla” on some of its menus “might conceivably
`be misunderstood by some few consumers viewing it in an unreasonable manner.” Id. (quoting
`Lavie v. Procter & Gamble Co., 105 Cal. App. 4th 496, 508 (2003)). Rather, it must be “probable
`
`
`2 The only FDA “labeling” regulations applicable to restaurants are the menu-labeling
`regulations. See 21 C.F.R. § 101.9(j). But those regulations require only that calories be disclosed
`and certain other nutritional information be posted or available upon request; they do not
`incorporate or require compliance with the regulations cited in the Complaint. See 21 C.F.R. §
`101.11.
`3 The other alleged predicates for Plaintiff’s UCL “unlawful” claim require a false or misleading
`representation and thus fail because no reasonable consumer would be misled by McDonald’s use
`of the term “Vanilla,” as explained below.
`
`
`6
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`Case No. 3:20-CV-06533-RS
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06533-RS Document 29 Filed 01/04/21 Page 14 of 25
`
`
`
`that a significant portion of the general consuming public or of targeted consumers, acting
`reasonably in the circumstances, could be misled.” Lavie, 105 Cal. App. 4th at 508 (emphasis
`added); see also Hill v. Roll Int’l Corp., 195 Cal. App. 4th 1295, 1304 (2011) (emphasizing that
`“the standard is not a least sophisticated consumer,” but a reasonable one).
`Where a court can conclude as a matter of law that members of the public are not likely to
`be deceived, dismissal is appropriate. Pelayo v. Nestle USA, Inc., 989 F. Supp. 2d 973, 978 (C.D.
`Cal. 2013). Accordingly, courts regularly grant motions to dismiss where the alleged consumer
`deception is based on an unreasonable or implausible interpretation of a product’s name or
`description. See, e.g., Becerra v. Dr. Pepper/Seven Up, Inc., 945 F.3d 1225, 1229 (9th Cir. 2019)
`(affirming dismissal because a reasonable consumer would not believe that “diet” soda assists
`weight loss); Workman v. Plum Inc., 141 F. Supp.