Case 4:22-cv-02046-JSW Document 20 Filed 07/26/22 Page 1 of 22
`
`
`
`JENNER & BLOCK LLP
`Dean N. Panos (pro hac vice)
`dpanos@jenner.com
`353 North Clark Street
`Chicago, IL 60654
`Phone:
`(312) 222-9350
`Facsimile:
`(312) 527-0484
`
`JENNER & BLOCK LLP
`Alexander M. Smith (Cal. Bar No. 295187)
`asmith@jenner.com
`515 South Flower Street, Suite 3300
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Phone:
`(213) 239-5100
`Facsimile:
`(213) 239-5199
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Mondelēz Global LLC
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AVI KLAMMER, individually and on behalf of
`all others similarly situated,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`MONDELĒZ GLOBAL LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 4:22-cv-2046-JSW
`
`The Honorable Jeffrey S. White
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO
`DISMISS FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION
`COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
`& AUTHORITIES
`
`Hearing Date:
`
`Hearing Time: 9:00 a.m.
`
`Courtroom: Remote (Zoom)
`
`
`September 30, 2022
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES
`CASE NO. 4:22-CV-2046-JSW
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-02046-JSW Document 20 Filed 07/26/22 Page 2 of 22
`
`
`
`
`
`JENNER & BLOCK LLP
`
`TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, on September 30, 2022 at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the
`Court is available, Defendant Mondelēz Global LLC (“MDLZ”) will appear before the Honorable Jeffrey
`S. White via the Zoom videoconference platform and will, and hereby does, move to dismiss Plaintiff Avi
`Klammer’s First Amended Class Action Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6),
`and each claim asserted therein, because it fails to state a plausible claim on which relief can be granted.
`MDLZ’s motion to dismiss is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the following
`Memorandum of Points and Authorities, any additional briefing on this subject (including MDLZ’s reply
`brief), and the evidence and arguments that will be presented to the Court at the hearing on this matter.
`
`DATED: July 26, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
` /s/ Dean N. Panos
` Dean N. Panos
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Mondelēz Global LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES
`CASE NO. 4:22-CV-2046-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 4:22-cv-02046-JSW Document 20 Filed 07/26/22 Page 3 of 22
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................1
`ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT...................................................................................................2
`ARGUMENT ...............................................................................................................................................4
`I.
`Plaintiff Has Not Plausibly Alleged That MDLZ’s Labeling Is Deceptive or Unlawful. ..................4
`Viewed in context, the phrase “high protein lentils” is not misleading or
`A.
`unlawful. ..............................................................................................................................4
`Plaintiff’s challenge to the back-label “protein-packed” representation also
`fails. ......................................................................................................................................7
`The omission of the “corrected amount of protein” is also not actionable. .......................10
`C.
`Plaintiff’s Tag-Along Claims Fail Absent a Plausible Allegation of Consumer Deception. ............13
`II.
`III. Plaintiff Cannot Seek Equitable Relief Because He Has an Adequate Legal Remedy. ...................14
`CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................................................................15
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES
`CASE NO. 4:22-CV-2046-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 4:22-cv-02046-JSW Document 20 Filed 07/26/22 Page 4 of 22
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Adams v. Cole Haan, LLC,
`No. 20-913, 2020 WL 5648605 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2020) ................................................................... 15
`
`Ahern v. Apple Inc.,
`411 F. Supp. 3d 541 (N.D. Cal. 2019) .................................................................................................. 13
`
`Airs Aromatics, LLC v. Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Mgmt., Inc.,
`744 F.3d 595 (9th Cir. 2014) .................................................................................................................. 9
`
`In re Apple Processor Litig.,
`No. 18-147, 2022 WL 2064975 (N.D. Cal. June 8, 2022) ...................................................................... 7
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...................................................................................................................... 4, 7, 10
`
`Becerra v. Dr. Pepper/Seven Up, Inc.,
`945 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2019) ................................................................................................................ 4
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ................................................................................................................................ 4
`
`Brady v. Bayer Corp.,
`26 Cal. App. 5th 1156 (2018) ................................................................................................................. 9
`
`Brazil v. Dole Packaged Foods, LLC,
`660 F. App’x 531 (9th Cir. 2016) ........................................................................................................... 9
`
`Brown v. Nature’s Path Foods, Inc.,
`No. 21-5132, 2022 WL 717816 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2022) ........................................................... 10, 11
`
`Brown v. Starbucks Corp.,
`No. 18-2286, 2019 WL 996399 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2019) ...................................................................... 9
`
`Brown v. Van’s Int’l Foods, Inc.,
`No. 22-1, 2022 WL 1471454 (N.D. Cal. May 10, 2022) .......................................................... 11, 12, 13
`
`Coastal Abstract Serv., Inc. v. First Am. Title Ins. Co.,
`173 F.3d 725 (9th Cir. 1998) .................................................................................................................. 7
`
`Coe v. Gen. Mills, Inc.,
`No. 15-5112, 2016 WL 4208287 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2016) ................................................................. 8
`
`Consumer Advocates v. Echostar Satellite Corp.,
`113 Cal. App. 4th 1351 (2003) ............................................................................................................... 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES
`CASE NO. 4:22-CV-2046-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 4:22-cv-02046-JSW Document 20 Filed 07/26/22 Page 5 of 22
`
`
`
`Cook, Perkiss & Liehe, Inc. v. N. Cal. Collection Serv., Inc.,
`911 F.2d 242 (9th Cir. 1990) .................................................................................................................. 7
`
`Demetriades v. Yelp!, Inc.,
`228 Cal. App. 4th 294 (2014) ................................................................................................................. 7
`
`Elias v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`903 F. Supp. 2d 843 (N.D. Cal. 2012) .................................................................................................... 8
`
`Freeman v. Time, Inc.,
`68 F.3d 285 (9th Cir. 1995) .................................................................................................................... 5
`
`Gibson v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC,
`No. 20-769, 2020 WL 5492990 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2020) ................................................................... 15
`
`Girard v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.,
`316 F. App’x 561 (9th Cir. 2008) ......................................................................................................... 14
`
`Hill v. Roll Int’l Corp.,
`195 Cal. App. 4th 1295 (2011) ............................................................................................................... 4
`
`Knowles v. ARRIS Int’l PLC,
`847 F. App’x 512 (9th Cir. 2021) ........................................................................................................... 5
`
`Lacey v. Maricopa County,
`693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012) .................................................................................................................. 9
`
`Lavie v. Procter & Gamble Co.,
`105 Cal. App. 4th 496 (2003) ................................................................................................................. 4
`
`In re MacBook Keyboard Litig.,
`No. 18-2813, 2020 WL 6047253 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2020) ................................................................ 15
`
`Mitchell v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp., Inc.,
`No. 20-8496, 2022 WL 657044 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 4, 2022) ...................................................................... 6
`
`Moore v. Trader Joe’s Co.,
`4 F.4th 874 (9th Cir. 2021) ................................................................................................................. 4, 5
`
`Nacarino v. Kashi Co.,
`--- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2022 WL 390815 (N.D. Cal. 2022) ....................................................................... 12
`
`Newcal Indus., Inc. v. Ikon Office Solutions,
`513 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................................ 7
`
`Pardini v. Unilever U.S., Inc.,
`961 F. Supp. 2d 1048 (N.D. Cal. 2013) ................................................................................................ 10
`
`Punian v. Gillette Co.,
`No. 14-5028, 2016 WL 1029607 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2016) ............................................................... 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES
`CASE NO. 4:22-CV-2046-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 4:22-cv-02046-JSW Document 20 Filed 07/26/22 Page 6 of 22
`
`
`
`Shaeffer v. Califia Farms, LLC,
`44 Cal. App. 5th 1125 (2020) ..................................................................................................... 9, 10, 13
`
`Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp.,
`971 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2020) ...................................................................................................... 2, 14, 15
`
`Stewart v. Kodiak Cakes, LLC,
`537 F. Supp. 3d 1103 (S.D. Cal. 2021) ................................................................................................... 8
`
`Stickrath v. Globalstar, Inc.,
`527 F. Supp. 2d 992 (N.D. Cal. 2007) .................................................................................................... 7
`
`Victor v. R.C. Bigelow, Inc.,
`No. 13-2976, 2014 WL 1028881 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2014) ................................................................. 5
`
`In re Vioxx Class Cases,
`180 Cal. App. 4th 116 (2009) ............................................................................................................... 14
`
`Weiss v. Trader Joe’s Co.,
`838 F. App’x 302 (9th Cir. 2021) ..................................................................................................... 5, 14
`
`Williams v. Gerber Products Co.,
`552 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2008) .............................................................................................................. 8, 9
`
`Workman v. Plum Inc.,
`141 F. Supp. 3d 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .................................................................................................. 8
`
`Wynn v. Topco Assocs., LLC,
`No. 19-11104, 2021 WL 168541 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2021) ................................................................... 5
`
`Yu v. Dr. Pepper Snapple Grp., Inc.,
`No. 18-6664, 2020 WL 5910071 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2020) .................................................................. 14
`
`Other Authorities
`
`21 C.F.R. § 101.9 ................................................................................................................................. passim
`
`21 C.F.R. § 101.10 ...................................................................................................................................... 11
`
`21 C.F.R. § 101.13 ................................................................................................................................ 11, 12
`
`21 C.F.R. § 101.36 ...................................................................................................................................... 12
`
`21 C.F.R. § 101.54 ............................................................................................................................... passim
`
`USDA, FoodData Central, https://bit.ly/3torNyN (last visited July 26, 2022) ............................................. 6
`
`USDA, FoodData Central, https://bit.ly/3xcPk6M (last visited July 26, 2022) ........................................... 6
`
`USDA, FoodData Central, https://bit.ly/3xi3lQR (last visited July 26, 2022) ............................................. 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES
`CASE NO. 4:22-CV-2046-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 4:22-cv-02046-JSW Document 20 Filed 07/26/22 Page 7 of 22
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Enjoy Life Foods, a subsidiary of Mondelēz Global LLC (“MDLZ”), manufactures Enjoy Life
`Lentil Chips. In contrast to potato chips or tortilla chips, Enjoy Life Lentil Chips are made with lentil
`flour—or, to quote the packaging, “high protein lentils finely milled into flour for a light & airy chip with
`serious crunch.” First Am. Compl. (“FAC”) ¶ 20. Plaintiff does not dispute that the chips contain lentil
`flour. Nor does he identify any affirmative front-label statement that the chips contain a specific amount
`of protein. Instead, Plaintiff claims that the phrase “high protein lentils”—which describes only the lentil
`flour used to make the chips, rather than the chips themselves—falsely suggests that Enjoy Life Lentil
`Chips are “high” in protein even though they do not satisfy the FDA’s requirements to make such a claim.
`Plaintiff’s interpretation of the labeling is entirely implausible, and this Court should dismiss his lawsuit.
`The fundamental flaw in Plaintiff’s lawsuit is that it fixates on the phrase “high protein” while
`ignoring the context in which this phrase appears. The phrase “high protein” never appears in isolation on
`the labeling of Enjoy Life Lentil Chips. Instead, it appears only as part of the phrase “high protein lentils,
`finely milled into flour,” which clarifies that this phrase refers only to the lentil flour used to manufacture
`the product. No reasonable consumer would interpret the phrase “high protein lentils, finely milled into
`flour” as a representation about the chips themselves—let alone a representation that the chips are “high”
`in protein or that they provide a specific amount of protein. Instead, a reasonable consumer would interpret
`this phrase to mean that the chips are made with lentil flour, which is higher in protein than other flours
`commonly used to make chips. Courts routinely reject consumer fraud claims where the plaintiff plucks
`words out of a label while ignoring the context in which they appear. This Court should do the same here.
`The FDA’s general regulation governing “high” claims, 21 C.F.R. § 101.54, does not change this
`result. Despite Plaintiff’s suggestion to the contrary, this regulation does not transform any statement that
`includes the word “high” into a regulated nutrient content claim, regardless of the context in which that
`word appears. Moreover, Plaintiff’s complaint is bereft of any factual allegations suggesting that this
`regulation has any bearing on reasonable consumer expectations. Even if Plaintiff’s allegations established
`a technical violation of this regulation (which they do not), that does not mean that the labeling of Enjoy
`Life Lentil Chips is likely to mislead a reasonable consumer—as Plaintiff must establish to state a claim.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES
`CASE NO. 4:22-CV-2046-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 4:22-cv-02046-JSW Document 20 Filed 07/26/22 Page 8 of 22
`
`
`
`Plaintiff also challenges two aspects of the back label of Enjoy Life Lentil Chips—the use of the
`puffery phrase “protein-packed” and the omission of the percent of daily value of protein from the Nutrition
`Facts panel. But leaving aside the fact that “protein-packed” is puffery on which no reasonable consumer
`would rely, these claims fail because Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged that he saw or relied on either
`aspect of the packaging when he decided to purchase Enjoy Life Lentil Chips. Plaintiff’s generic allegation
`that he “relied upon . . . the protein representations and omissions printed on the front and back of the
`Product” (FAC ¶ 9) is not sufficient to state a plausible claim—particularly given his earlier allegation that
`he “relied upon Defendant’s labeling and advertising claims, namely, the high protein representations
`printed on the front of the product.” Compl. ¶ 8 (emphasis added). This Court should not permit Plaintiff
`to retreat from his earlier allegation that he purchased Enjoy Life Lentil Chips based on its front-label
`representations, and it should dismiss any claims premised on the back label of the product.
`Finally, even if this Court permits Plaintiff’s lawsuit to proceed, it should dismiss his claims for
`equitable relief. Because Plaintiff’s claims for violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”)
`and for breach of express warranty allow him to recover money damages, he cannot establish that his legal
`remedies are inadequate—even though he must do so to seek equitable relief under California’s consumer
`protection statutes. See generally Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 971 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2020). These
`claims are fatally flawed, and this Court should dismiss them with prejudice.
`ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT
`This case concerns Enjoy Life Lentil Chips, which are made with lentil flour. The front of the
`
`packaging describes them as “light and airy lentil chips” seasoned with sea salt, and it states that the chips
`are made with “high protein lentils, finely milled into flour for a light and airy chip with serious crunch.”
`FAC ¶ 20 (image of packaging). The back of the packaging similarly states that “[t]his chip’s unique
`recipe results in a protein-packed, crunchy experience, bursting with flavor as you savor a great-tasting
`‘better-for-you’ chip.” Id. Leaving aside the Nutrition Facts panel, which accurately states that the chips
`contain 3 grams of protein per serving, the labeling does not make any objective representation as to the
`amount of protein the chips contain. Plaintiff nonetheless alleges that the product’s packaging is
`misleading in three distinct ways:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES
`CASE NO. 4:22-CV-2046-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 4:22-cv-02046-JSW Document 20 Filed 07/26/22 Page 9 of 22
`
`
`
`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
`
`First, Plaintiff asserts that the phrase “high protein lentils finely milled into flour”—which describes
`
`the lentil flour used to make the chips—is misleading because it falsely suggests that the chips are “high”
`in protein. Relying on an FDA regulation, 21 C.F.R. § 101.54(b), Plaintiff claims that the FDA permits
`manufacturers like MDLZ to state that a product is “high” in protein only if it contains at least 20% of the
`recommended daily intake (“RDI”) or daily reference value (“DRV”) of protein. See FAC ¶ 32. According
`to Plaintiff, the DRV of protein “is based on a complete protein,” and “the gross amount of protein must
`be adjusted by the protein digestibility-corrected amino acid score (‘PDCAAS’).” Id. ¶¶ 34, 38. Plaintiff
`then alleges that Enjoy Life Lentil Chips contain only 3 grams of protein per serving (or 6% of the DRV)
`and that the “PDCAAS for lentils ranges from 0.538 to 0.628.” Id. ¶ 36, 39. Plaintiff thus alleges that the
`“PDCAAS-corrected protein amount for the Products is 1.88 grams per serving,” such that “the Products
`only contain 18.8% of the protein content required to substantiate high protein claims.” Id. ¶¶ 40–41.
`
`Second, Plaintiff claims that the product’s alleged lack of protein also makes it misleading to use
`the phrase “protein-packed” on the back of the package, as this phrase implies to consumers that the product
`is “high” in protein or an “excellent source” of protein—even though the product does not qualify for those
`claims under 21 C.F.R. § 101.54. See FAC ¶¶ 30–31. Although Plaintiff now alleges that he “read and
`relied on Defendant’s labeling representations including ‘high protein’ and ‘protein-packed’” (id. ¶ 10),
`that allegation materially differs from his initial complaint, in which he alleged only that he “relied upon
`Defendant’s labeling and advertising claims, namely, the high protein representations printed on the front
`of the Product.” Compl. ¶ 8 (emphasis added).
`
`Third, Plaintiff claims that MDLZ violates the FDA’s protein-labeling regulation, 21 C.F.R.
`§ 101.9(c)(7), by making “nutrient content claim[s] related to protein content” while failing to state the
`“Percent Daily Value” of protein in the Nutrition Facts panel. FAC ¶¶ 43–44. “By artfully omitting the
`DRV for protein,” Plaintiff alleges, MDLZ “is able to mislead and deceive consumers that the Products
`are excellent or good sources of protein.” Id. ¶ 45.
`
`Based on these allegations, Plaintiff asserts claims against MDLZ for violations of the Unfair
`Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq., the False Advertising Law (“FAL”),
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500 et seq., and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), Cal. Civ.
`Code §§ 1750 et seq., as well as common-law claims for breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment.
`
`
`3
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES
`CASE NO. 4:22-CV-2046-JSW
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 4:22-cv-02046-JSW Document 20 Filed 07/26/22 Page 10 of 22
`
`
`
`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
`
`See FAC ¶¶ 78–138. Plaintiff asserts his common-law claims on behalf of a putative nationwide class of
`consumers, as well as a putative California subclass. See id. ¶ 69. He asserts his statutory consumer fraud
`claims only on behalf of the putative California subclass. See id. ¶¶ 79 (UCL), 100 (FAL), 112 (CLRA).
`ARGUMENT
`To survive a motion to dismiss, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
`true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
`(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Facts indicating the “mere possibility of
`misconduct” fall short of this plausibility standard. Id. at 679 (emphasis added). Rather, the plaintiff must
`“allege more by way of factual content to ‘nudg[e]’ his claim” of unlawful action “across the line from
`conceivable to plausible.” Id. at 683 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Plaintiff has not done so here.
`I.
`Plaintiff Has Not Plausibly Alleged That MDLZ’s Labeling Is Deceptive or Unlawful.
`Because Plaintiff’s claims are premised on allegedly “deceptive or misleading marketing,” he must
`“demonstrate that a ‘reasonable consumer’ is likely to be misled by the representation.” Moore v. Trader
`Joe’s Co., 4 F.4th 874, 881 (9th Cir. 2021). To satisfy that “reasonable consumer” standard, Plaintiff must
`“show that members of the public are likely to be deceived” by MDLZ’s labeling. Becerra v. Dr.
`Pepper/Seven Up, Inc., 945 F.3d 1225, 1228 (9th Cir. 2019) (citation omitted and emphasis added).
`This standard “requires more than a mere possibility that [the] label ‘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)). Nor is the standard that of a “least
`sophisticated consumer” or an “unwary consumer.” Hill v. Roll Int’l Corp., 195 Cal. App. 4th 1295, 1304
`(2011) (citation and emphasis omitted). “Rather, the reasonable consumer standard requires a probability
`that a significant portion of the general consuming public or of targeted consumers, acting reasonably in
`the circumstances, could be misled.” Becerra, 945 F.3d at 1228–29 (emphasis added) (citation and internal
`quotation marks omitted). None of Plaintiff’s theories of deception satisfy this standard.
`A.
`Viewed in context, the phrase “high protein lentils” is not misleading or unlawful.
`Plaintiff’s primary theory of deception is that the packaging of Enjoy Life Lentil Chips falsely
`
`represents that they are a “high protein” food. See, e.g., FAC ¶ 4 (alleging that “all Products are labeled
`as ‘high protein’”) (emphasis added); id. ¶ 21 (“On the front label . . . Defendant prominently represents
`
`
`4
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES
`CASE NO. 4:22-CV-2046-JSW
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 4:22-cv-02046-JSW Document 20 Filed 07/26/22 Page 11 of 22
`
`
`
`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
`
`that the Product is ‘high protein.’”) (emphasis added). Plaintiff claims that this representation is both
`misleading and unlawful because the chips do not contain enough protein to qualify for a “high protein”
`claim under 21 C.F.R. § 101.54. See FAC ¶¶ 26–46. But this theory fails because the phrase “high protein
`lentils, finely milled into flour” describes the lentil flour used to make the chips, not the product itself.
`
`As the Ninth Circuit has made clear, this Court must evaluate whether MDLZ’s labeling is
`misleading by considering the packaging “as a whole,” instead of evaluating a single phrase (such as “high
`protein”) in isolation. Freeman v. Time, Inc., 68 F.3d 285, 290 (9th Cir. 1995); see also Moore, 4 F.4th at
`882 (affirming dismissal of false advertising lawsuit and holding that claim was not plausible “as a matter
`of law” where “other available information . . . would quickly dissuade a reasonable consumer” from his
`mistaken interpretation of the labeling); Knowles v. ARRIS Int’l PLC, 847 F. App’x 512, 513 (9th Cir.
`2021) (similar). Indeed, as the Ninth Circuit recently explained, Freeman stands for the common-sense
`proposition that “product packaging should be examined in its full context because it would be
`unreasonable to cherry-pick discrete statements to prove deception.” Weiss v. Trader Joe’s Co., 838 F.
`App’x 302, 303 (9th Cir. 2021). That commonsense principle is fatal to Plaintiff’s claim.
`Critically, the labeling of Enjoy Life Lentil Chips never uses the phrase “high protein” in isolation.
`See FAC ¶ 20 (images of the labeling). Nor does the labeling use the phrase “high protein” to describe the
`chips themselves. Instead, the labeling includes the following text: “high protein lentils, finely milled into
`flour for a light and airy chip with serious crunch.” Id. Viewed in that context, no reasonable consumer
`would construe the phrase “high protein lentils, finely milled into flour” as a representation about the
`protein content of the chips—let alone as a claim that the chips satisfy the FDA’s technical requirements
`for making a “high” nutrient content claim. Rather, a reasonable consumer would understand that the
`phrase “high protein lentils, finely milled into flour” refers to the lentil flour, which is higher in protein
`than other flours and provides the chips with their “light and airy” consistency and “serious crunch.”
`
`To avoid this commonsense result, Plaintiff claims that the FDA regulations require any product
`that uses the phrase “high protein”—no matter the context—to contain at least 10 grams of protein. But
`Plaintiff has not alleged “that reasonable consumers are aware of these complex regulations, much less that
`they incorporate the regulations into their day-to-day marketplace expectations.” Wynn v. Topco Assocs.,
`LLC, No. 19-11104, 2021 WL 168541, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2021); see also, e.g., Victor v. R.C.
`
`
`5
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES
`CASE NO. 4:22-CV-2046-JSW
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-02046-JSW Document 20 Filed 07/26/22 Page 12 of 22
`
`
`
`Bigelow, Inc., No. 13-2976, 2014 WL 1028881, at *17 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2014) (“[T]he ultimate question
`. . . is what a reasonable consumer expects, which may have absolutely no relation to FDA regulations.”)
`It is accordingly irrelevant whether the FDA has promulgated a regulation dictating the specific
`amount of protein necessary to use the word “high.” What matters is whether a reasonable consumer would
`interpret the labeling claim at issue here (i.e., “high protein lentils, finely milled into flour for a light and
`airy chip with serious crunch”) to mean that Enjoy Life Lentil Chips contain 20% of the DRV of protein.
`Absent any allegation that reasonable consumers share the FDA’s definition of “high protein,” or that
`reasonable consumers interpret the phrase “high protein lentils” as a claim about the product’s protein
`content, Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged that this phrase is misleading. See Mitchell v. Whole Foods
`Mkt. Grp., Inc., No. 20-8496, 2022 WL 657044, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 4, 2022) (“Where there is no extrinsic
`evidence that the perceptions of ordinary consumers align with these various labeling standards, the federal
`regulations cited by the plaintiff are insufficient to establish that a consumer is likely to be misled by the
`alleged lack of conformity with the regulations.”) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
`
`Plaintiff’s theory of misbranding is not only divorced from reasonable consumer expectations, but
`also leads to absurd results. As Plaintiff notes in his complaint, the FDA has set a daily reference value of
`50 grams of protein for adults and children over four. See FAC ¶ 33 (citing 21 C.F.R. § 101.9(c)(7)(iii)).
`And the FDA’s regulation governing “high” claims, 21 C.F.R. § 101.54(b), requires a product to contain
`20% of the DRV of the advertised nutrient to use the terms “high,” “rich in,” or “excellent source.” 21
`C.F.R. § 101.54(b). Thus, according to Plaintiff, the phrase “high protein” necessarily implies that the
`product contains 10 grams of protein. But no reasonable consumer would believe that a serving of chips—
`let alone a 28-gram serving of “light and airy” lentil chips—would contain that amount of protein.
`As a point of comparison, a 45-gram serving of peanut butter contains approximately 10 grams of
`protein.1 Similarly, a 1-cup serving of reduced-fat milk contains approximately eight grams of protein.2
`And a whole egg contains approximately 6 grams of protein.3 A reasonable consumer exercising basic
`common sense—which the Supreme Court has directed district courts to apply in weeding out implausible
`
`
`1 See USDA, FoodData Central, https://bit.ly/3torNyN (last visited July 26, 2022).
`2 See USDA, FoodData Central, https://bit.ly/3xcPk6M (last visited July 26, 2022).
`3 See USDA, FoodData Central, https://bit.ly/3xi3lQR (last visited July 26, 2022).
`
`6
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES
`CASE NO. 4:22-CV-2046-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 4:22-cv-02046-JSW Document 20 Filed 07/26/22 Page 13 of 22
`
`
`
`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
`
`claims (see Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679)—would not believe that a 28-gram serving of lentil chips would contain
`as much protein as a serving of peanut butter, or more protein than an e