Case 4:21-cv-00913-YGR Document 121 Filed 12/01/21 Page 1 of 35
`
`
`
`LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
`REBECCA A. PETERSON (241858)
`100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
`Minneapolis, MN 55401
`Telephone: (612) 339-6900
`E-mail: rapeterson@locklaw.com
`
`LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR, LLC
`SUSANA CRUZ HODGE, Pro Hac Vice
`570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
`Newark, NJ 07102
`Telephone: (973) 623-3000
`E-mail: scruzhodge@litedepalma.com
`
`Co-Lead Interim Class Counsel
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`
`Case No. 21-cv-00913-YGR
`
`Hon: Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM IN
`OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’
`MOTION TO DISMISS OR, IN THE
`ALTERNATIVE, TO STAY;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
`THEREOF
`
`Date: January 11, 2022
`Time: 2:00 PM
`Courtroom: 1
`
` )
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`IN RE PLUM BABY FOOD
`LITIGATION
`
`This Document Relates to:
`
`ALL ACTIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS, MASTER FILE NO. 21-CV-00913-YGR
`
`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 4:21-cv-00913-YGR Document 121 Filed 12/01/21 Page 2 of 35
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED .......................................................................... 1 
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1 
`
`SUMMARY OF THE CASE ........................................................................................... 1 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`Plum Omitted Material Information on Heavy Metals and Other Toxins ........... 1 
`
`The Truth is Revealed Relating to Plum’s Material Omissions ........................... 2 
`
`III. 
`
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................... 4 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`G. 
`
`H. 
`
`Plaintiffs’ Claims Premised on Perchlorate Should Proceed ............................... 4 
`
`Article III Standing is Satisfied ............................................................................ 4 
`
`Plaintiffs suffered an injury in fact .............................................................. 4 
`1. 
`Plaintiffs have standing to seek injunctive relief. ........................................ 7 
`2. 
`Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Not Preempted .................................................................. 9 
`
`The Court Should Not Invoke Primary Jurisdiction ........................................... 13 
`
`Deception is Sufficiently Pled ............................................................................ 19 
`
`1.  Ubiquity of Heavy Metals Does Not Absolve Plum ................................. 20 
`2. 
`Plaintiffs’ Allegations of Contamination and Risk Are Sufficient ............ 21 
`Breach of Implied Warranty Is Properly Pled .................................................... 23 
`
`Request for Judicial Notice and Response ......................................................... 24 
`
`In the Alternative, Leave to Amend Should Be Granted ................................... 25 
`
`IV. 
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 25 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS, MASTER FILE NO. 21-CV-00913-YGR
`
`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 4:21-cv-00913-YGR Document 121 Filed 12/01/21 Page 3 of 35
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`CASES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Abrantes v. Northland Grp., Inc.,
`2015 WL 1738255 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2015) .............................................................17
`
`Allen v. Hyland’s Inc.,
`300 F.R.D. 643 (C.D. Cal. 2014) ...................................................................................6
`
`Anderson v. Holder,
`673 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2012) .....................................................................................24
`
`Astiana v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc.,
`783 F.3d 753 (9th Cir. 2015) .................................................................................13, 17
`
`Axon v. Citrus World, Inc.,
`354 F. Supp. 3d 170 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) .........................................................................22
`
`Backus v. General Mills,
`122 F. Supp. 3d 909 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .........................................................................18
`
`Backus v. Nestlé USA, Inc.,
`167 F. Supp. 3d 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2016) .......................................................................13
`
`Beaty v. Ford Motor Co.,
`854 F. App’x. 845 (9th Cir. 2021) ...............................................................................23
`
`Bell v. Publix Super Markets, Inc.,
`982 F.3d 468 (7th Cir. 2020) .................................................................................19, 21
`
`Berke v. Whole Foods Mkt.,
`2020 WL 5802370 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 18, 2020)................................................................6
`
`Boysen v. Walgreen Co.,
`2012 WL 2953069 (N.D. Cal. July 19, 2012). ...............................................................6
`
`Brazil v. Dole Food Co., Inc.,
`935 F. Supp. 2d 947 (N.D. Cal. 2013) ...........................................................................6
`
`Brazil v. Dole Packaged Foods LLC,
`660 F. App’x. 531 (9th Cir. 2016) .................................................................................6
`
`Capaci v. Sports Rsch. Corp.,
`445 F. Supp. 3d 607 (C.D. Cal. 2020) .........................................................................16
`
`Chavez v. Blue Sky Nat. Beverage Co.,
`340 F. App’x. 359 (9th Cir. 2009) .............................................................................5, 7
`
`-ii-
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS, MASTER FILE NO. 21-CV-00913-YGR
`
`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 4:21-cv-00913-YGR Document 121 Filed 12/01/21 Page 4 of 35
`
`
`
`Chem. Specialties Mfrs. Ass’n, Inc., v. Allenby,
`958 F.2d 941 (9th Cir. 1992) .........................................................................................9
`
`Cimoli v. Alacer Corp.,
`2021 WL 2711770 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2021) ..................................................................8
`
`Clark v. Time Warner Cable,
`523 F.3d. 1110 (9th Cir. 2008) ....................................................................................19
`
`Cohen v. Apple Inc.,
`497 F. Supp. 3d 769 (N.D. Cal. 2020) .........................................................................12
`
`Cohen v. ConAgra Brands, Inc.,
`16 F.4th 1283 (9th Cir. 2021) ..........................................................................11, 12, 13
`
`Colangelo v. Champion Petfoods USA, Inc.,
`2020 WL 777462 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 2020) ...............................................................23
`
`Cole v. Asurion Corp.,
`2008 WL 5423859 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2008) ...............................................................5
`
`Colette v. CV Sciences, Inc.,
`2020 WL 2739861 (C.D. Cal. May 22, 2020) .............................................................19
`
`Corbett v. Pharmacare U.S., Inc.,
`2021 WL 4866124 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2021) ........................................................10, 11
`
`Cortina v. Goya Foods, Inc.,
`94 F. Supp. 3d 1174 (S.D. Cal. 2015) ......................................................................9, 13
`
`Curtis v. Philip Morris Cos.,
`2004 WL 2776228 (Minn. Dist. Ct. Nov. 29, 2004) ....................................................19
`
`Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.,
`889 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2018) .........................................................................................7
`
`Doss v. Gen. Mills, Inc.,
`816 F. App’x. 312 (11th Cir. 2020). ..............................................................................7
`
`Farina v. Nokia Inc.,
`625 F.3d 97 (3d Cir. 2010)...........................................................................................12
`
`Fla. Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul,
`373 U.S. 132 (1963) .....................................................................................................11
`
`Geier v. Am. Honda Motor Co.,
`529 U.S. 861 (2000) .....................................................................................................12
`
`Green v. Pepsico, Inc.,
`2019 WL 8810364 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 12, 2019) ................................................................7
`
`-iii-
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS, MASTER FILE NO. 21-CV-00913-YGR
`
`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 4:21-cv-00913-YGR Document 121 Filed 12/01/21 Page 5 of 35
`
`
`
`Hadley v. Kellogg Sales Co.,
`243 F. Supp. 3d 1074 (N.D. Cal. 2017) .......................................................................25
`
`Hawyuan Yu v. Dr Pepper Snapple Grp., Inc.,
`2019 WL 2515919 (N.D. Cal. June 18, 2019) .............................................................22
`
`Herrington v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Cos., Inc.,
`2010 WL 3448531 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 1, 2010) .................................................................5
`
`Hough v. Big Heart Pet Brands, Inc.,
`2020 WL 7227198 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2020) .................................................................6
`
`Humetrix, Inc. v. Gemplus S.C.A.,
`268 F.3d 910 (9th Cir. 2001) .......................................................................................15
`
`Hunter v. Philip Morris USA,
`582 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2009) .....................................................................................10
`
`In re 5-Hour ENERGY Mktg. and Sales Practices Litig.,
`2017 WL 385042 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2017) ................................................................24
`
`In re Gen. Mills Glyphosate Litig.,
`2017 WL 2983877 (D. Minn. July 12, 2017) ..............................................................22
`
`In re JUUL Labs, Inc., Mktg., Sales Pracs., & Prod. Liab. Litig.,
`497 F. Supp. 3d 552 (N.D. Cal. 2020) ...................................................................15, 17
`
`In re KIND LLC “Healthy & All Natural” Litig.,
`209 F. Supp. 3d 689 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) ..........................................................................17
`
`In re KIND LLC “Healthy & All Natural” Litig,
`287 F. Supp. 3d 457 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) ....................................................................17, 18
`
`In re Tobacco Cases II,
`240 Cal. App. 4th 779 (2015) ........................................................................................6
`
`In re Valsartan, Losartan, and Irbesartan Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`2020 WL 7418006 (D.N.J. Dec. 18, 2020) ..................................................................11
`
`Isip v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC,
`155 Cal. App. 4th 19 (2007) ........................................................................................24
`
`Jackson v. Gen. Mills, Inc.,
`2020 WL 5106652 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2020) ...............................................................8
`
`Joslin v. Clif Bar & Co.,
`2019 WL 5690632 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2019) ..............................................................8
`
`Kane v. Chobani, LLC,
`645 F. App’x. 593 (9th Cir. 2016) ...............................................................................17
`
`-iv-
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS, MASTER FILE NO. 21-CV-00913-YGR
`
`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 4:21-cv-00913-YGR Document 121 Filed 12/01/21 Page 6 of 35
`
`
`
`Koronthaly v. L’Oreal USA, Inc.,
`2008 WL 2938045 (D.N.J. July 29, 2008) .....................................................................7
`
`Kosta v. Del Monte Corp.,
`2013 WL 2147413 (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2013) .............................................................16
`
`Krommenhock v. Post Foods, LLC,
`255 F. Supp. 3d 938 (N.D. Cal. 2017) .........................................................................20
`
`Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court,
`51 Cal. 4th 310 (2011) ...................................................................................................6
`
`Landau v. Viridian Energy PA LLC,
`223 F. Supp. 3d 401 (E.D. Pa. 2016) ...........................................................................19
`
`Landgraf v. USI Film Prods.,
`511 U.S. 244 (1994) .....................................................................................................15
`
`Lanovaz v. Twinings N. Am., Inc.,
`726 F. App’x. 590 (9th Cir. 2018) .................................................................................8
`
`Leppert v. Champion Petfoods USA Inc.,
`2019 WL 216616 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 16, 2019) ..................................................................23
`
`Lilly v. Jamba Juice Co.,
`2015 WL 1248027 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2015) ...............................................................8
`
`Lockwood v. Conagra Foods, Inc.,
`597 F. Supp. 2d 1028 (N.D. Cal. 2009) .........................................................................9
`
`Lujan v. Defs. Of Wildlife,
`504 U.S. 555 (1992) .......................................................................................................6
`
`Madenlian v. Flax USA Inc.,
`2014 WL 7723578 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2014) .......................................................19, 21
`
`Marsh v. Zaazoom Sols., LLC,
`2012 WL 952226 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2012) ...............................................................10
`
`Maya v. Centex Corp.,
`658 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2011) ...................................................................................4, 7
`
`McGee v. S-L Snacks National,
`982 F.3d 700 (9th Cir. 2020) .........................................................................................7
`
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr,
`518 U.S. 470 (1996) .....................................................................................................10
`
`Moore v. Trader Joe’s Co.,
`4 F.4th 874 (9th Cir. 2021). .........................................................................................21
`
`-v-
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS, MASTER FILE NO. 21-CV-00913-YGR
`
`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 4:21-cv-00913-YGR Document 121 Filed 12/01/21 Page 7 of 35
`
`
`
`Morgan v. Wallaby Yogurt Co., Inc.,
`2013 WL 5514563 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2013) ..............................................................6, 7
`
`Myers v. Starbucks Corp.,
`2021 WL 1921120 (C.D. Cal. May 5, 2021) .................................................................8
`
`Nguyen v. Medora Holdings, LLC,
`2015 WL 4932836 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2015) ..............................................................5
`
`Pac. Botanicals, LLC v. Sego’s Herb Farm, LLC,
`2016 WL 11187249 (D. Or. Dec. 8, 2016) ..................................................................24
`
`Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. State Energy Res. Conservation & Dev. Comm’n,
`461 U.S. 190 (1983) .....................................................................................................10
`
`Padilla v. Whitewave Foods Co.,
`2019 WL 4640399 (C.D. Cal. July 26, 2019) ................................................................9
`
`Parks v. Ainsworth Pet Nutrition, LLC,
`2020 WL 832863 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 2020) ................................................................22
`
`Parks v. Ainsworth Pet Nutrition, LLC,
`377 F. Supp. 3d 241 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) ..........................................................................21
`
`People ex rel. Spitzer v. Gen. Elec. Co.,
`302 A.D.2d 314 (N.Y. App. 2003) ..............................................................................19
`
`People of State of Cal. v. F.C.C.,
`905 F.2d 1217 (9th Cir. 1990) .....................................................................................10
`
`Prescott v. Bayer Healthcare LLC,
`2020 WL 4430958 (N.D. Cal. July 31, 2020) ........................................................16, 17
`
`Rahman v. Mott’s LLP,
`2018 WL 4585024 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2018) ..............................................................8
`
` Reese v. Odwalla, Inc.,
`30 F. Supp. 3d 935 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ...........................................................................18
`
`Reid v. Johnson & Johnson,
`780 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2015) ...........................................................................14, 15, 17
`
`Roberts v. Arizona Bd. of Regents,
`661 F.2d 796 (9th Cir. 1981) .......................................................................................25
`
`Robles v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC,
`913 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2019) ...........................................................................13, 14, 16
`
`Rosillo v. Annie’s Homegrown Inc.,
`2017 WL 5256345 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2017) ..............................................................18
`
`-vi-
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS, MASTER FILE NO. 21-CV-00913-YGR
`
`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 4:21-cv-00913-YGR Document 121 Filed 12/01/21 Page 8 of 35
`
`
`
`Sandoval v. PharmaCare US, Inc.,
`145 F. Supp. 3d 986 (S.D. Cal. 2015) ..........................................................................12
`
`Schneider v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.,
`328 F.R.D. 520 (N.D. Cal. 2018) ...................................................................................6
`
`Sciortino v. Pepsico, Inc.,
`108 F. Supp. 3d 780 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .....................................................................9, 25
`
`Souter v. Edgewell Pers. Care Co.,
`2021 WL 3892670 (S.D. Cal. June 7, 2021) ................................................................16
`
` Syntek Semiconductor Co. Ltd. v. Microchip Tech. Inc.,
`307 F.3d 775 (9th Cir. 2002). ......................................................................................19
`
`Ting v. AT&T,
`319 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2003) .....................................................................................12
`
`Tran v. Sioux Honey Ass’n, Coop.,
`471 F. Supp. 3d 1019 (C.D. Cal. 2020) .......................................................................22
`
`Tran v. Sioux Honey Association, Cooperative,
`2017 WL 5587276 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2017) ..............................................................18
`
`Tucker v. Post Consumer Brands, LLC,
`2020 WL 1929368 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2020) ...............................................................8
`
`United States v. Mead Corp.,
`533 U.S. 218 (2001) .....................................................................................................13
`
`Viggiano v. Hansen Nat. Corp.,
`944 F. Supp. 2d 877 (C.D. Cal. 2013) .........................................................................24
`
`Watson v. Solid Gold Pet, LLC,
`2019 WL 3308766 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2019)..............................................................21
`
`Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co.,
`552 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2008) .................................................................................19, 23
`
`Wyeth v. Levine,
`555 U.S. 555 (2009) .........................................................................................11, 12, 13
`
`Zarinebaf v. Champion Petfoods USA Inc.,
`2019 WL 3555383 (N.D. Ill. July 30, 2019) ................................................................23
`
`Zeiger v. WellPet LLC,
`304 F. Supp. 3d 837 (N.D. Cal. 2018) ...........................................................5, 7, 21, 25
`
`Zeiger v. WellPet LLC,
`526 F. Supp. 3d 652 (N.D. Cal. 2021) .....................................................................8, 19
`
`-vii-
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS, MASTER FILE NO. 21-CV-00913-YGR
`
`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 4:21-cv-00913-YGR Document 121 Filed 12/01/21 Page 9 of 35
`
`
`
`RULES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 .........................................................................................................6, 21
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 .............................................................................................................25
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 201 .............................................................................................................24
`
`STATUTES
`
`104 Stat. 2343 (1990) .........................................................................................................9
`
`21 U.S.C. § 343-1 .........................................................................................................9, 12
`
`47 U.S.C. § 258 ................................................................................................................19
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. ..........................................................................12
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, et seq.. ...................................................................12, 13
`
`Cal. Civil Code § 1750, et seq. ..................................................................................12, 13
`
`
`
`-viii-
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS, MASTER FILE NO. 21-CV-00913-YGR
`
`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 4:21-cv-00913-YGR Document 121 Filed 12/01/21 Page 10 of 35
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`
`Whether dismissal is improper because: (1) Plaintiffs satisfy Article III standing; (2) their
`
`state law claims are not preempted; (3) primary jurisdiction is not proper; and both (4) deception
`
`and (5) breach of implied warranty are properly pled.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This case is about Plum, a baby food manufacturer holding a special position of trust,
`
`choosing to omit information it knows is material to any parent. Plum knowingly remained silent
`
`on the presence of heavy metals in its premium-priced baby foods despite the known health and
`
`developmental risks of heavy metal exposure to infants and toddlers. After hiding the truth from
`
`parents and refusing to cooperate with a governmental investigation, Plum now asks this Court
`
`to help it evade any liability for its material omissions. But its request is not supported by the law
`
`or facts—preemption and primary jurisdiction are inapplicable and there is no doubt that parents
`
`were unaware of the presence and risk of heavy metals in Plum’s premium baby foods.1 
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE CASE
`
`A.
`
`Plum Omitted Material Information on Heavy Metals and Other Toxins
`
`Plum’s premium Baby Foods are sold to unsuspecting reasonable consumers with
`
`misleading and deceptive packaging that fails to disclose information any parent would consider
`
`material.2 (¶¶17, 73-85.) Although Plum acknowledges on its website’s FAQ section that heavy
`
`metals “will be present in food” and it “is committed to minimizing [] heavy metals within our
`
`products,” (¶88), its packaging omits that the Baby Foods contain (or have a material risk of
`
`
`1 For brevity, Plaintiffs collectively refer to defendants as “Plum.” Plum, PBC alleges that Plum,
`Inc. no longer exists. (Dkt. 103 n.1.) However, Plum, Inc.’s 2019 and 2021 state filings list “Plum
`Inc.” as its corporate name and state it is doing business as Plum PBC. (Dkt. 53-2, 75-8, 75-9.)
`2 “Baby Foods” collectively refers to the products identified in the First Amended Class Action
`Complaint (Dkt. No. 98, (the “FACC”) at 3 n.1.) All ¶ references are to the FACC and all
`references to exhibits are to the Declaration of Rebecca A. Peterson unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`1
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS, MASTER FILE NO. 21-CV-00913-YGR
`
`
`
`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 4:21-cv-00913-YGR Document 121 Filed 12/01/21 Page 11 of 35
`
`
`
`containing) heavy metals and perchlorate. (¶¶5, 7, 19-24, 77, 125, 135, 159-161, 175-176, 183.)
`
`For example, testing has detected high levels of arsenic in the Super Puffs. (¶19); Ex. 1 at 19-20.
`
`Plum’s testing also shows its Baby Foods contain levels of lead exceeding bottled water standards
`
`and levels of cadmium exceeding drinking water standards. Ex. 1 at 20-21. These amounts of
`
`heavy metals are more than just “trace” amounts, contrary to Plum’s characterization.
`
`Plum chose not to disclose any information on its packaging about heavy metals or toxins
`
`despite knowing that parents “trust manufacturers like [Plum] to sell baby food that is healthy,
`
`nutritious, and free from harmful toxins, contaminants, and chemicals” and that “[t]hey certainly
`
`expect the food they feed their infants and toddlers to be free from Heavy Metals or perchlorate,
`
`substances known to have significant and dangerous health consequences.” (¶2.) Plaintiffs and
`
`other reasonable consumers relied on Plum’s misleading and deceptive packaging and paid a
`
`premium price for the Baby Foods, just as Plum intended. (¶¶157-188.)
`
`B. The Truth is Revealed Relating to Plum’s Material Omissions
`
`On February 4, 2021, the U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on Oversight and
`
`Reform, Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy (the “Subcommittee”) published a
`
`report (the “Report”) describing “significant” and “concerning” levels of heavy metals in baby
`
`foods, including Plum’s. (¶¶15-17, 93; Dkt. 98-1 at 3, 6, 46.) The Report concluded that
`
`“[m]anufacturers knowingly sell [baby food] to unsuspecting parents [] without any warning
`
`labeling whatsoever,” and that “[c]onsumers believe that they would not sell unsafe products.”
`
`(¶17; Dkt. 98-1 at 7.) Plum refused to cooperate with the Subcommittee’s investigation and did
`
`not disclose its testing standards or results to the Subcommittee. (¶¶68, 71; Dkt. 98-1 at 3, 6, 45-
`
`46.) As a result, the Report referenced independent testing results for a sample of Plum products,
`
`showing they contained “concerning levels” of heavy metals. (Dkt. 98-1 at 45-46; ¶¶16, 125,
`
`135.) The Subcommittee expressed concern that Plum’s lack of cooperation and transparency
`
`2
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS, MASTER FILE NO. 21-CV-00913-YGR
`
`
`
`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 4:21-cv-00913-YGR Document 121 Filed 12/01/21 Page 12 of 35
`
`
`
`“hides more than it reveals,” that it may be concealing “the presence of even higher levels of
`
`toxic heavy metals in their baby food products,” and that it “has hidden its policies and the actual
`
`level of toxic heavy metals in its products.” (Dkt. 98-1 at 3, 6, 45-46.)
`
`Plum has since provided test results that were included in the Subcommittee’s September
`
`29, 2021, follow-up report (the “Second Report”). Ex. 1 at 2, 18-21, COR-000047-53. The
`
`Subcommittee’s initial concerns about Plum’s evasiveness proved true—the results from Plum’s
`
`own internal testing results exposed even higher levels of heavy metals in even more of Plum’s
`
`products. Id. at 2, 18-21.3 Indeed, despite Plum’s alleged “commitment to minimizing…heavy
`
`metals within [its] products[],” (¶88), the presence of toxins increased over the years.4
`
`While not specifically required to state a claim, see infra at B.1, Plum’s testing showed
`
`that Baby Food varieties purchased by Plaintiffs contain heavy metals:
`
`1. Mashup Pouch: Strawberry Beet, purchased by Plaintiff David (¶46): 17 ppb of lead
`in July 2018. See Ex. 1 at COR-000049-Row 2.
`
`2. Stage 2 Baby Food Pouch: Pumpkin, Spinach, Chickpea & Broccoli, purchased by
`Plaintiff David (¶46): 33 ppb of cadmium in May 2018. See id. at COR-000051-Row
`4.
`
`3. Teensy Snacks: Berry, purchased by Plaintiffs McKeon (¶34) and Mathieson (¶40): 15
`ppb of arsenic in Oct. 2017. See id. at COR-000051-Row 36.
`
`4. Jammy Sammy Sandwich Bar: Apple Cinnamon & Oatmeal, purchased by Plaintiff
`Brown (¶49): 20 ppb of arsenic and 15 ppb of cadmium in Jan. 2021. See id. at COR-
`000053-Row 4.
`
`
`3 The Second Report states that all samples of Plum’s Super Puffs contained between 200 and
`470 parts per billion (“ppb”) for arsenic and an average of 79 ppb of inorganic arsenic; that most
`of Plum’s Baby Foods contained more than 5 ppb of lead, with some products containing up to
`73 ppb; and that almost 40% of Plum’s Baby Foods contain more than of 5 ppb of cadmium,
`with some products containing up to 43 ppb. See Ex. 1 at 18-21.
`4 Stage 2 Organic Baby Food Pouch: Apple & Carrot contained 8 ppb of cadmium in Nov. 2017
`and 12 ppb of cadmium in Oct. 2020. Ex. 1 at COR-000047-Row 1; COR-0000053-Row 22.
`Mighty Snack Bars: Strawberry contained 15 ppb of arsenic and 8 of ppb cadmium in Oct. 2017
`and 31 ppb of arsenic and 39 ppb of cadmium in Oct. 2020. Id. at COR-000047-Row 4; COR-
`0000053-Row 12.
`
`3
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS, MASTER FILE NO. 21-CV-00913-YGR
`
`
`
`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 4:21-cv-00913-YGR Document 121 Filed 12/01/21 Page 13 of 35
`
`
`
`Plum’s testing shows it knew that the Baby Foods were tainted with heavy metals as far back as
`
`2017 and continuing into 2021 and it knowingly misled consumers by failing to disclose the
`
`presence of heavy metals. See Id. at COR-000047-53; (¶¶157-188.) 5
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Claims Premised on Perchlorate Should Proceed
`
`Plum’s motion entirely ignores Plaintiffs’ claims premised on the inclusion or risk of
`
`inclusion of perchlorate in the Baby Foods, which form a separate basis for liability from the
`
`allegations relating to heavy metals. (See, e.g., ¶¶11, 139-148.) Those claims should proceed to
`
`discovery. Efficiency also dictates that both sets of claims, which will involve much of the same
`
`discovery, should proceed concurrently, thereby further supporting denial of dismissal or a stay.
`
`B.
`
`Article III Standing is Satisfied
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs suffered an injury in fact
`
`Under Article III, there is a “quintessential injury-in-fact” when the “plaintiffs spent
`
`money that, absent defendants’ actions, they would not have spent.” Maya v. Centex Corp., 658
`
`F.3d 1060, 1069 (9th Cir. 2011).6 Plaintiffs allege just that—economic injury caused by paying
`
`for products they would not have purchased, or would not have paid a premium for, if Plum had
`
`disclosed material information about the presence (or risk) of heavy metals (¶¶28-57, 157-188,
`
`249, 262, 290, 310, 341, 356, 370, 382, 407, 424.) Plaintiffs further allege that baby food with
`
`these substances is valueless or not worth as much as baby food that is safe for consumption by
`
`infants or children. (¶¶93-141, 157-188.)
`
` “[S]imilar allegations in the food mislabeling context have repeatedly been held
`
`
`5 For example, Plum claims its “top priority” is to “serve children healthy, nutritious food made
`from the best ingredients,” and that it has a “comprehensive quality and food safety
`program…which includes testing for heavy metals.” (¶¶72, 80-82.) According to the Second
`Report, however, “Plum provided its test results, which confirmed the Subcommittee’s concerns
`about the danger of some of its products.” Ex. 1 at 2.
`6All emphasis is deemed added and citations are deemed omitted unless otherwise noted.
`4
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS, MASTER FILE NO. 21-CV-00913-YGR
`
`
`
`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 4:21-cv-00913-YGR Document 121 Filed 12/01/21 Page 14 of 35
`
`
`
`sufficient to establish an economic injury for purposes of both constitutional and statutory
`
`standing.” Zeiger v. WellPet LLC, 304 F. Supp. 3d 837, 846 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (“Zeiger I”). See
`
`also Chavez v. Blue Sky Nat. Beverage Co., 340 F. App’x. 359, 361 (9th Cir. 2009) (injury in
`
`fact where a plaintiff “asserts that he purchased beverages that he otherwise would not have
`
`purchased in absence of the alleged misrepresentations”); Nguyen v. Medora Holdings, LLC,
`
`2015 WL 4932836, at *5 n.38 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2015) (injury in fact where consumer paid a
`
`premium price for a mislabeled product or would not have purchased the product had she
`
`known); Cole v. Asurion Corp., 2008 WL 5423859, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2008) (same).
`
`Plum offers arguments that “largely go to the merit of [P]laintiffs’ claims, and not their
`
`standing to bring th[eir] claims” when arguing the injury here is ‘hypothetical.” Zeiger I, 304 F.
`
`Supp. 3d at 846; (Dkt. 103 at 15). Even analyzing the merits, these arguments fail. Both
`
`independent testing and Plum’s testing demonstrate the presence of heavy metals and
`
`perchlorate. (¶¶159-163; Ex. 1 at 18-21.) Herrington v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Cos., Inc.
`
`is inapposite because the plaintiffs