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-09940-JSW Document 30 Filed 04/14/22 Page 1 of 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BRYAN A. MERRYMAN (SBN 134357)
`bmerryman@whitecase.com
`KATHERINE GODAR (SBN 343096)
`katherine.godar@whitecase.com
`WHITE & CASE LLP
`555 South Flower Street, Suite 2700
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-2433
`Telephone: (213) 620-7700
`Facsimile: (213) 452-2329
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`FAITH NORMAN, individual, on behalf of
`herself and others similarly situated,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY,
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 4:21-cv-09940-JSW
`DEFENDANT GERBER PRODUCTS
`COMPANY’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED
`COMPLAINT; AND MEMORANDUM
`OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`[Request for Judicial Notice Filed
`Concurrently]
`Date: May 20, 2022
`Time: 9:00 a.m.
`Place: Courtroom 5
`Judge: Hon. Jeffrey S. White
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AMERICAS 113911795
`
`
`GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY’S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST
`AMENDED COMPLAINT – CASE NO: 4:21-cv-09940-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 4:21-cv-09940-JSW Document 30 Filed 04/14/22 Page 2 of 25
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on May 20, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as
`this motion may be heard, in the United States District Court, Northern District of California,
`Oakland Division, in Courtroom 5, before the Honorable Jeffrey S. White, defendant Gerber
`Products Company (“Gerber”) will and hereby does move the Court for an order dismissing
`plaintiff Faith Norman’s (“Plaintiff”) First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), and each claim alleged
`therein, without leave to amend, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 9(b), 12(b)(1),
`and 12(b)(6).
`Gerber moves the Court to dismiss the FAC on the following grounds: (1) Plaintiff
`predicates some allegations entirely upon generalized statistics and processes without alleging
`facts specific to Gerber; (2) Plaintiff’s added allegation specific to one Gerber product relates
`only to one category of claims and does not render that category of claims sufficiently pled; (3)
`Plaintiff fails to plausibly allege a reasonable consumer would be misled by Gerber’s label; (4)
`Plaintiff fails to plausibly allege a reasonable consumer would share her interpretation of
`genetically modified organisms; (5) Plaintiff fails to plausibly define genetically modified
`organisms; and (6) Plaintiff alleges the same theory of liability for her common law claims, which
`fails to plausibly allege a reasonable consumer is likely to be deceived by Gerber’s label. Gerber
`respectfully requests the Court dismiss all of Plaintiff’s claims.
`This motion is based on this notice of motion, the memorandum of points and authorities,
`the request for judicial notice, the pleadings and documents on file in this lawsuit, and argument
`and other matters as may be presented to the Court at the hearing.
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8’s Pleading Requirements. Does
`Plaintiff state a claim when some of her allegations rely solely on
`generalized statistics and processes without alleging facts specific to
`Gerber’s products or manufacturing practices? Does one allegation
`specific to one Gerber product render the relevant category of claims
`sufficiently pled?
`
`1.
`
`
`2.
`
`
`
`AMERICAS 113911795
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)’s Pleading Requirements.
`Because Plaintiff’s claims “sound in fraud,” do they meet Rule 9(b)’s
`
`GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY’S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST
`AMENDED COMPLAINT – CASE NO: 4:21-cv-09940-JSW
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-09940-JSW Document 30 Filed 04/14/22 Page 3 of 25
`
`
`3.
`
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`heightened pleading standard?
`
`Standing For Equitable Relief. Does Plaintiff have standing to sue for
`equitable relief when she does not allege she lacks an adequate remedy at
`law?
`
`UCL/FAL/CLRA. If Plaintiff does not plausibly allege a reasonable
`consumer would be misled by Gerber’s “NON GMO” claim, does she
`state a claim under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 and 17500, or Cal.
`Civ. Code § 1750? If Plaintiff’s definition of “GMO” is implausible, does
`she state a claim under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 and 17500, or
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1750?
`
`Standing For Products Not Purchased. Does Plaintiff have standing to
`assert claims based on products she did not purchase, particularly when
`the product purchased and the products not purchased are not
`“substantially similar?”
`
`Unjust Enrichment. Is there a cause of action in California for unjust
`enrichment? If so, is Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim duplicative and
`therefore barred when it is supported by the same misrepresentation theory
`underlying her statutory claims? Does Plaintiff state an unjust enrichment
`claim when she does not allege she lacks an adequate remedy at law?
`
`
`
`
`Dated: April 14, 2022
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WHITE & CASE LLP
`
`
`By: /s/ Bryan A. Merryman
`
` Bryan A. Merryman
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY
`
`
`AMERICAS 113911795
`
`
`GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY’S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST
`AMENDED COMPLAINT – CASE NO: 4:21-cv-09940-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 4:21-cv-09940-JSW Document 30 Filed 04/14/22 Page 4 of 25
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`I. 
`II. 
`III. 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................................. 1 
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND .............................................................................................. 2 
`THE COURT SHOULD DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ................... 2 
`A. 
`Plaintiff Lacks Standing to Sue for Equitable Relief ............................................... 2 
`B. 
`Plaintiff’s Claims are Pled Insufficiently ................................................................. 3 
`C. 
`Plaintiff’s Claims Based on Ingredients Allegedly Genetically Engineered
`in a Laboratory Setting Through the Use of Biotechnologies (Category
`(2)) and Ingredients Sourced from Animals Raised on GMO Feed
`(Category (3)) Fail.................................................................................................... 5 
`Gerber’s “NON GMO” Stamp is Unlikely to Deceive a Reasonable
`Consumer ..................................................................................................... 6 
`A Reasonable Consumer Would Not Interpret Gerber’s
`a. 
`“NON GMO” Claim to be the Same as the Non-GMO
`Project’s ........................................................................................... 6 
`Plaintiff’s Definition of GMO is Implausible .................................. 9 
`b. 
`Plaintiff Lacks Standing For Claims Based on Ingredients
`Allegedly Derived from Animals Raised on GMO Feed (Category
`(3)) Because She Does Not Allege She Purchased a Gerber Product
`Containing Animal Byproducts ................................................................. 11 
`Plaintiff’s Claim under the UCL’s “Unlawful” Prong Should Be
`Dismissed Because She Fails To Establish a Predicate Violation of Law ............. 13 
`Plaintiff’s Claim under the UCL’s “Unfair” Prong Should Be Dismissed
`Because She Fails To Plausibly Allege False or Misleading Conduct .................. 13 
`Plaintiff Fails to State Breach of Warranty Claims ................................................ 14 
`Plaintiff Fails to Plead Fraud ................................................................................. 14 
`Plaintiff Fails to State an Unjust Enrichment / Restitution Claim ......................... 15 
`CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 16 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`G. 
`H. 
`IV. 
`
`
`
`
`
`AMERICAS 113911795
`
`- i -
`GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT – CASE NO: 4:21-cv-09940-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 4:21-cv-09940-JSW Document 30 Filed 04/14/22 Page 5 of 25
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Ault v. J.M. Smucker Co.,
`No. 13 Civ. 3409 (PAC), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67118 (S.D.N.Y. May 5, 2014) ....................5
`
`Baranco v. Ford Motor Co.,
`294 F. Supp. 3d 950 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2018) ..........................................................................7
`
`Berryman v. Merit Prop. Mgmt., Inc.,
`152 Cal. App 4th 1544 (2007) ..................................................................................................13
`
`Brockey v. Moore,
`107 Cal. App. 4th 86 (2003) .......................................................................................................8
`
`In re Cal. Gasoline Spot Mkt. Anitrust Litig.,
`No. 20-cv-03131-JSC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59875 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2021) .....................3
`
`Cel-Tech Commc’ns, Inc. v. L.A. Cellular Tel. Co.,
`20 Cal. 4th 163 (1999) ........................................................................................................13, 14
`
`Davis v. HSBC Bank Nev., N.A.,
`691 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2012) .....................................................................................................8
`
`Decker v. GlenFed, Inc.,
`42 F.3d 1541 (9th Cir. 1994) .....................................................................................................15
`
`Elias v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`950 F. Supp. 2d 1123 (N.D. Cal. 2013) ....................................................................................13
`
`Figy v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc.,
`67 F. Supp. 3d 1075 (2014) .......................................................................................................12
`
`Freeman v. Time, Inc.,
`68 F.3d 285 (9th Cir. 1995) .........................................................................................................8
`
`Gallagher v. Chipotle Mexican Grill,
` No. 15-cv-03952-HSG, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14479 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2016) ............10, 11
`
`Gordon v. Target Corp.,
`No. 20-CV-9589 (KMK), 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48769 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2022) ............6, 7
`
`Granfield v. Nvidia Corp.,
`No. C 11-05403 JW, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98678 (N.D. Cal. July 11, 2012) .......................12
`
`Gunaratna v. Dennis Gross Cosmetology LLC,
`No. CV 20-2311-MWF, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 249995 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2020) ..............12
`
`
`
`AMERICAS 113911795
`
`- ii -
`GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT – CASE NO: 4:21-cv-09940-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 4:21-cv-09940-JSW Document 30 Filed 04/14/22 Page 6 of 25
`
`
`
`Hill v. Roll Int’l Corp.,
`195 Cal. App. 4th 1295 (2011) ...................................................................................................8
`
`Janda v. T-Mobile, USA, Inc.,
`No. C 05-03729 JSW, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24395 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2009) ...................14
`
`Kane v. Chobani, Inc.,
`No. 12-CV-02425-LHK, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134385 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2013) .............13
`
`Lavie v. Proctor & Gamble Co.,
`105 Cal. App. 4th 496 (2003) .....................................................................................................6
`
`Lazar v. Superior Court,
`12 Cal. 4th 631 (1996) ..............................................................................................................15
`
`Licul v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc.,
`No. 13-61686-CIV, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171627 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 5, 2013) .........................15
`
`In re MacBook Keyboard Litig.,
`No. 5:18-cv-02813-EJD, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190508 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2020) ................3
`
`Mantikas v. Kellogg Co.,
`910 F.3d 633 (2d Cir. 2018) ........................................................................................................8
`
`Mlejnecky v. Olympus Imaging Am., Inc.,
`No. 2:10-CV-02630 JAM-KJN, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42333 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2011) .....12
`
`Moore v. Trader Joe’s Co.,
`4 F.4th 874 (9th Cir. 2021) .........................................................................................................8
`
`Myers-Armstrong v. Actavis Totowa, LLC,
`382 F. App’x 545 (9th Cir. 2010) .............................................................................................15
`
`Nguyen v. Nissan N. Am., Inc.,
`No. 16-CV-05591-LHK, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55501 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2017) ..................3
`
`Pappas v. Chipotle Mexican Grill,
`No. 16CV612-MMA (JLB), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202524 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2016) ........11
`
`Robie v. Trader Joe’s Co.
`No. 20-cv-07355-JSW, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117336 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2021)
` .................................................................................................................................3, 4, 5, 14, 15
`
`Schneider v. Chipotle Mexican Grill,
`No. 16-cv-02200-HSG, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153579 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2016) ...................5
`
`Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp.,
`971 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2020) .......................................................................................................3
`
`South Bay Chevrolet v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp.,
`72 Cal. App. 4th 861 (1999) .....................................................................................................14
`
`- iii -
`
`GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT – CASE NO: 4:21-cv-09940-JSW
`
`AMERICAS 113911795
`
`
`
`

`

`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-09940-JSW Document 30 Filed 04/14/22 Page 7 of 25
`
`
`
`Spiegler v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.,
`552 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (C.D. Cal. 2008) ....................................................................................14
`
`Stewart v. Kodiak Cakes,
`537 F. Supp. 3d 1103 (S.D. Cal. 2021) ...........................................................................9, 10, 12
`
`Sud v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,
`229 F. Supp. 3d 1075 (N.D. Cal. 2017) ....................................................................................13
`
`Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co.,
`552 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2008) .......................................................................................................6
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`7 U.S.C. § 1639b(b)(2)(A) (2021) ....................................................................................................9
`
`FEDERAL REGULATIONS
`
`7 C.F.R. § 66.1(1)(i) (2022) ..............................................................................................................9
`
`15 C.F.R. § 774.2 ..............................................................................................................................9
`
`STATE STATUTES
`
`9 V.S.A. § 3042(4) (2016) ................................................................................................................9
`
`9 V.S.A. § 3044 (2016) .....................................................................................................................9
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 .......................................................................................................2
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 .......................................................................................................2
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 .......................................................................................................................2
`
`Cal. Com. Code § 2607 ...................................................................................................................13
`
`Conn. Gen. Stat. § 21a-92 (2015) .....................................................................................................9
`
`Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. Title 7 § 1051(2) (2009) ...................................................................................9
`
`MISCELLANEOUS
`
`Council Directive 2001/18/EC, Article 2, 2001 O.J. (L 106) ...........................................................9
`
`GMO Crops, Animal Food, and Beyond, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (Feb. 17, 2022)
` ...................................................................................................................................................11
`
`Non-GMO Shopping Guide, The Institute for Responsible Technology (2012) ..............................5
`
`
`
`AMERICAS 113911795
`
`- iv -
`GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT – CASE NO: 4:21-cv-09940-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 4:21-cv-09940-JSW Document 30 Filed 04/14/22 Page 8 of 25
`
`
`
`Voluntary Labeling Indicating Whether Foods Have or Have Not Been Derived from Genetically
`Engineered Plants: Guidance for Industry,
`U.S. Food and Drug Administration (revised Mar. 2019) ..........................................................9
`
`
`
`
`
`AMERICAS 113911795
`
`- v -
`GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT – CASE NO: 4:21-cv-09940-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 4:21-cv-09940-JSW Document 30 Filed 04/14/22 Page 9 of 25
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`Plaintiff’s FAC should be dismissed because it fails, as a matter of law, to allege Gerber
`mislabeled its products in a way that would likely mislead a reasonable consumer. Plaintiff’s
`claims hinge on two contentions. First, reasonable consumers confuse Gerber’s “NON GMO”
`label with the Non-GMO Project’s Verified seal and standard, which another district court held
`last month was “patently implausible” when considering the same Non-GMO Project Verified
`seal and a seal analogous to Gerber’s. Second, reasonable consumers share Plaintiff’s
`interpretation of Gerber’s label, which reads “NON GMO” with the explanatory statement “NOT
`MADE WITH GENETICALLY ENGINEERED INGREDIENTS” directly below it. Plaintiff,
`however, disregards the distinct aesthetic differences between these two labels, the label’s
`definition of GMO, every federal, state, and regulatory body’s definition of GMO, and even her
`own definition of GMO. She instead alleges a “significant portion of the general consuming
`public” would reasonably believe Gerber’s “NON GMO” label represents the Non-GMO
`Project’s standard that the products do not contain three categories of ingredients:
`Category (1): ingredients allegedly derived from genetically modified crops or food
`sources;
`Category (2): ingredients allegedly genetically engineered in a laboratory setting through
`the use of biotechnologies; and
`Category (3): ingredients allegedly sourced from animals raised on GMO feed.
`
`To support her allegations regarding category (1) and (3) ingredients, Plaintiff relies on
`generalized statistics, and exclusively so for category (3) ingredients. Her argument for these two
`categories of ingredients is Gerber’s products must contain genetically modified ingredients
`because a certain percentage of crops in the U.S. are genetically modified or a certain percentage
`of cows in the U.S. are fed genetically modified feed.
`Plaintiff’s allegations concerning category (2) ingredients also fail because she neglects to
`plead the processes alleged for creating these ingredients involve a “transfer of genes,” as her
`own definition of GMO mandates, or actually render the ingredients genetically modified. She
`further fails to plead that those processes are the only methods for creating the challenged
`
`- 1 -
`GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT – CASE NO: 4:21-cv-09940-JSW
`
`AMERICAS 113911795
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`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-09940-JSW Document 30 Filed 04/14/22 Page 10 of 25
`
`
`
`ingredients or that Gerber, in fact, utilizes those processes. Plaintiff’s primary addition to her
`FAC – that an organization found one of the challenged products contains GMO corn – supports
`only her category (1) claims and still does not move those claims over the plausibility threshold
`required to survive a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff does not include, as she must, sufficient
`allegations specific to Gerber or its practices.
`While Plaintiff also attempts to state common law claims, they, too, are predicated on this
`same theory of misrepresentation on which she bases her statutory claims. These glaring
`deficiencies in Plaintiff’s claims, which “sound in fraud,” must be tested under Rule 9(b)’s
`heightened pleading standard and, therefore, Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed.
`II.
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`Plaintiff Faith Norman seeks to represent a nationwide class and a California subclass of
`purchasers of “all Gerber-branded food or drink products that purport to be ‘NON GMO’ on the
`labeling and/or packaging,” including at least 37 “product lines, products, and/or flavors.”
`(“Products”). FAC ¶¶ 4, 44-75, 85. Plaintiff identifies only one product she allegedly purchased:
`“Gerber Good Start Soy 2 Powder Infant & Toddler Formula.” FAC ¶ 44.
`Plaintiff’s single theory of liability is Gerber “cheat[s] consumers by uniformly
`advertising, marketing, and selling nutritional food products . . . , each of which prominently
`features the representations ‘Non-GMO,’ . . . . However, . . . [the] Products do, in fact, contain
`ingredients that are derived from genetically modified food sources and therefore constitute
`GMOs.” FAC ¶ 1. Plaintiff asserts nine causes of action: (1) California’s Unfair Competition
`Law (“UCL”) (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.); (2) California’s False Advertising Law
`(“FAL”) (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500, et seq.); (3) California’s Consumers Legal Remedies
`Act (“CLRA”) (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750, et seq.); (4) breach of express warranty; (5) breach of
`implied warranty of merchantability; (6) unjust enrichment / restitution; (7) negligent
`misrepresentation; (8) fraud; and (9) fraudulent misrepresentation. FAC ¶ 6.
`
`III. THE COURT SHOULD DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`A.
`Plaintiff Lacks Standing to Sue for Equitable Relief
`First, Plaintiff lacks standing to seek equitable relief because she does not allege she lacks
`- 2 -
`
`GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT – CASE NO: 4:21-cv-09940-JSW
`
`AMERICAS 113911795
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`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-09940-JSW Document 30 Filed 04/14/22 Page 11 of 25
`
`
`
`an adequate remedy at law, as she must. See Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 971 F.3d 834,
`844 (9th Cir. 2020) (establishing plaintiffs must “lack[] an adequate remedy at law before
`securing equitable restitution”); In re MacBook Keyboard Litig., No. 5:18-cv-02813-EJD, 2020
`U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190508, at *11-14 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2020) (applying Sonner to the pleading
`stage and injunctive relief). Instead, Plaintiff seeks equitable relief in addition to damages. See,
`e.g., FAC ¶¶ 102-104. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s equitable claims must be dismissed. See Nguyen
`v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., No. 16-CV-05591-LHK, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55501, at *15-16 (N.D.
`Cal. Apr. 11, 2017) (dismissing CLRA injunctive relief, unjust enrichment, and UCL claims
`because monetary damages were adequate); In re Cal. Gasoline Spot Mkt. Anitrust Litig., No. 20-
`cv-03131-JSC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59875, at *30 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2021) (“Plaintiffs’
`citation to a pre-Sonner case for the proposition that they are permitted to plead alternative claims
`for relief is unavailing. Several courts have rejected this same argument.”).
`
`B.
`Plaintiff’s Claims are Pled Insufficiently
`Plaintiff predicates her claims on generalized statistics and processes. Plaintiff bases her
`category (1) and (3) claims that Gerber’s products must contain genetically modified ingredients
`on percentages of genetically modified crops grown in the U.S. or the practice of manufacturing
`animal feed using crops frequently genetically modified. FAC ¶¶ 16-17, 30. Plaintiff bases her
`category (2) claims on general practices for processing ingredients and does not even allege those
`processes render the ingredients genetically modified. Speculation without sufficient allegations
`specific to Gerber’s Products does not meet the plausibility standard, let alone the heightened
`pleading standard under Rule 9(b).
`In Robie v. Trader Joe’s Co., the plaintiff alleged Trader Joe’s representation of a product
`with “vanilla” was false or misleading because the product allegedly contained artificial vanillin
`not derived exclusively from the vanilla plant. No. 20-cv-07355-JSW, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`117336, at *9 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2021) (White, J.). In the complaint, the plaintiff alleged the
`vanillin in Trader Joe’s products was artificial rather than natural. Id. at 12-15. The court
`dismissed plaintiff’s FAL, CLRA, and UCL claims, holding plaintiff’s “conclusory allegations”
`were insufficient to state a claim, as they were based on generalized manufacturing practices and
`
`- 3 -
`GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT – CASE NO: 4:21-cv-09940-JSW
`
`AMERICAS 113911795
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-09940-JSW Document 30 Filed 04/14/22 Page 12 of 25
`
`
`
`not specific to the product at issue. Id. Here, Plaintiff makes the same conclusory allegations in
`her FAC. First, when discussing the challenged ingredients, Plaintiff never actually alleges the
`ingredients are genetically modified. FAC ¶ 42. She only alleges the Products contain such
`ingredients and references “GMO crops” or “dairy” sourced from animals fed GMO feed, basing
`her support on generalized statistics.1 FAC ¶¶ 16-17, 30, 42.
`For example, Plaintiff speculates Gerber’s “NON GMO” representation must be false
`because allegedly 92% of corn grown in the U.S. is genetically modified, and therefore “any of
`the ingredients derived from domestically produced . . . corn . . . [is] highly likely to contain
`GMOs.” FAC ¶¶ 16-17. This includes ingredients that may have been exposed to a potentially
`GMO crop at some point.2 Plaintiff repeats this logic for soybeans, sugar beets, and canola. Id.
`She also applies this logic to her category (3) claims, except she adds links to this chain. Plaintiff
`alleges a percentage of a crop grown in the U.S. is genetically modified; certain crops sometimes
`genetically modified are common in animal feed; therefore, most cows eat feed with genetically
`modified ingredients, and therefore Gerber’s products with or derived from animal byproducts
`must contain GMOs. FAC ¶ 30. Her category (2) claims are similarly deficient.3 Plaintiff
`alleges processes for creating the challenged ingredients and the Products contain these
`ingredients, but she does not actually allege these processes render the Products genetically
`modified, these are the only processes for creating those ingredients, or Gerber, in fact, uses the
`
`
`1 Plaintiff alleges only soy protein and soy protein isolate are genetically modified, again basing
`her support on general statistics regarding soybean production in the U.S. FAC ¶ 42.
` For example, Plaintiff alleges the following process with respect to citric acid: “[c]itric acid-
`producing microorganisms grow on culture media that usually contain molasses (which is derived
`from sugar beet . . .) and/or glucose (which usually comes from corn . . .).” FAC ¶ 42.
` In FAC ¶ 42, Plaintiff attempts to allege why each challenged ingredient is genetically modified.
`She alleges the ingredients derive from allegedly GMO crops (category (1)) or animals allegedly
`fed GMO feed (category (3)). She also alleges methods for creating these ingredients
`disconnected from her category (1) or (3) claims. For example, she alleges mixed tocopheryls is
`“a synthetic, water-soluble form of Vitamin E, [which] is often found in processed foods as a
`preservative.” FAC 20:1-4. It is unclear why Plaintiff includes these allegations. She does not
`allege a “transfer of genes” has occurred, as required by her own definition of GMO, or even
`allege those processes render the ingredient genetically modified. See discussion infra Section
`III.C.1.b. Gerber assumes Plaintiff includes these allegations to support her category (2) claims
`(ingredients allegedly genetically engineered in a laboratory setting by use of biotechnologies)
`and thus addresses them as such.
`
`- 4 -
`GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT – CASE NO: 4:21-cv-09940-JSW
`
`AMERICAS 113911795
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-09940-JSW Document 30 Filed 04/14/22 Page 13 of 25
`
`
`
`described processes.4 FAC ¶ 42. These conclusory allegations are insufficient.
`Plaintiff’s additions to her FAC do not cure these deficiencies in her initial complaint.
`First, Plaintiff adds the ingredients are “included on the Institute for Responsible Technology’s
`list of GMO ingredients.” FAC ¶ 42. This is inconsequential and misleading. It is a bare
`assertion the ingredients are GMO, as the source – a 2012 “Non-GMO Shopping Guide” – merely
`states the ingredients “may be made from GMOs.”5 Second, one test indicating one of 37
`products allegedly contains GMO corn relates only to her category (1) claims and does not
`elevate her allegations to those deemed sufficient in cases in which courts accepted generalized
`statistics to supplement defendant-specific allegations.
`For example, in Schneider v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, the plaintiff also alleged Chipotle
`made in-store “non-GMO” representations, despite representations on their website indicating
`otherwise. No. 16-cv-02200-HSG, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153579 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2016);
`Complaint at ¶ 45, Schneider, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153579. In Ault v. J.M. Smucker Co., the
`plaintiff alleged how Smuckers sourced its ingredients and a statement made by Smuckers that its
`“products may contain ingredients derived from biotechnology.” No. 13 Civ. 3409 (PAC), 2014
`U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67118, at *3-4 (S.D.N.Y. May 15, 2014).
`Plaintiff’s new allegations do not cure her category (1) claims, and her category (2) and
`(3) claims still rely on generalized statistics and processes, which the court in Robie found did not
`state a claim. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims must be dismissed.
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiff’s Claims Based on Ingredients Allegedly Genetically Engineered in a
`Laboratory Setting Through the Use of Biotechnologies (Category (2)) and
`Ingredients Sourced from Animals Raised on GMO Feed (Category (3)) Fail
`Plaintiff’s category (2) and (3) claims fail for three additional reasons. First, Plaintiff fails
`to plausibly allege a reasonable consumer would be misled by Gerber’s “NON GMO” label and
`would believe it means the Products do not contain category (3) ingredients. Second, Plaintiff’s
`definition of GMO is implausible, as it does not include category (3) ingredients and, when
`
`
`
`
`4 See supra note 1.
` Non-GMO Shopping Guide, The Institute for Responsible Technology, at 17 (2012). See RJN,
`Ex. 12 at 20.
`
`- 5 -
`GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT – CASE NO: 4:21-cv-09940-JSW
`
`AMERICAS 113911795
`
` 5
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`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-09940-JSW Document 30 Filed 04/14/22 Page 14 of 25
`
`
`
`alleging processes for creating the challenged ingredients (category (2)), she does not allege a
`“transfer of genes” occurred, as her GMO definition requires. Third, Plaintiff lacks standing for
`category (3) Products because the Product she purchased does not contain animal byproducts.
`Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims based on category (2) and (3) ingredients fail.
`
`
`