Case 4:22-cv-03460-DMR Document 15 Filed 08/19/22 Page 1 of 24
`
`ERIK K. SWANHOLT, CA Bar No. 198042
` eswanholt@foley.com
`FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
`555 SOUTH FLOWER STREET, SUITE 3300
`LOS ANGELES, CA 90071-2418
`TELEPHONE: 213.972.4500
`FACSIMILE: 213.486.0065
`Attorney for Defendant Barilla America,
`Inc.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`MATTHEW SINATRO and JESSICA
`PROST, individually and on behalf of all others
`similarly situated,
`
`vs.
`BARILLA AMERICA, INC.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 4:22-CV-03460-DMR
`DEFENDANT BARILLA AMERICA, INC.’S
`NOTICE OF MOTION, MOTION, AND
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF ITS
`MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED
`COMPLAINT
`
`(Filed concurrently with 1) Request for Judicial
`Notice; 2) Declaration of Erik K. Swanholt; 3)
`Proposed Order Granting Motion to Dismiss; 4)
`Proposed Order Granting Request for Judicial
`Notice)
`
`DATE: October 13, 2022
`TIME: 1:00 p.m.
`
`Complaint Filed: June 11, 2022
`FAC Filed: July 20, 2022
`
`Hon. Donna M. Ryu
`Oakland Courthouse - Courtroom 4
`3rd Floor
`
`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
`
`DEFENDANT BARILLA’S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 4:22-CV-03460-DMR
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03460-DMR Document 15 Filed 08/19/22 Page 2 of 24
`
`2.
`
`B.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 9
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES............................................................................................... 10
`THE REGISTERED TRADEMARK & PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGATIONS............................... 10
`LEGAL STANDARD ................................................................................................................ 12
`A.
`MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM ................................ 12
`B.
`MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION ...... 12
`ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................. 13
`A.
`THE FAC FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM PURSUANT TO RULE 12(B)(6) .............. 13
`1.
`The Products’ Packaging Is Not Materially Deceptive to a
`Reasonable Consumer..................................................................................... 13
`Plaintiffs’ Express Warranty Claims Fail Because the Registered
`Trademark on the Purchased Products’ Does Not Create a
`Warranty ......................................................................................................... 16
`PLAINTIFFS LACK ARTICLE III STANDING ......................................................... 17
`1.
`Plaintiffs Do Not Allege a Plausible Economic Injury ................................... 17
`2.
`Plaintiffs Have Not Sufficiently Pled A Risk of Future Harm ....................... 18
`3.
`Plaintiffs Cannot Show Barilla’s Conduct Caused Any Injury ...................... 19
`4.
`Plaintiffs Do Not Have Standing to Allege a Nationwide Class .................... 20
`5.
`Plaintiffs Do Not Have Standing as to Products They Did Not
`Purchase .......................................................................................................... 20
`PLAINTIFFS’ CONSUMER PROTECTION CLAIMS FAIL UNDER RULE
`9(B) ................................................................................................................................ 21
`PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS ARE EXPRESSLY PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL
`TRADEMARK LAW. ................................................................................................... 22
`PLAINTIFFS HAVE AN ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW AND THEREFORE
`CANNOT RECOVER IN EQUITY .............................................................................. 23
`CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................... 24
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`DEFENDANT BARILLA’S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`-2-
`Case No. 4:22-CV-03460-DMR
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`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-03460-DMR Document 15 Filed 08/19/22 Page 3 of 24
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ......................................................................................................................... 12
`Astiana v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc.,
`No. C-11-2910 EMC, 2012 WL 2990766 (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2012) .............................................. 16
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ......................................................................................................................... 12
`Bobo v. Optimum Nutrition, Inc.,
`No. 14CV2408 BEN (KSC), 2015 WL 13102417 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2015) ................................ 15
`Brazil v. Dole Food Co., Inc.,
`No. 12-CV-01831-LHK, 2013 WL 5312418 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2013)........................................ 19
`Campen v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc.,
`No. 12-1586 SC, 2013 WL 1320468 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2013) ................................................. 16, 17
`Carrea v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc.,
`475 F. App’x 113 (9th Cir. 2012) .................................................................................................... 13
`Chandler v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
`598 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) ......................................................................................................... 12
`City of Los Angeles v. Lyons,
`461 U.S. 95 (1983) ........................................................................................................................... 12
`Culver v. Unilever United States, Inc.,
`No. CV 19-9263-GW-RAOX, 2021 WL 2943937 (C.D. Cal. June 14, 2021),
`appeal dismissed, No. 21-55732, 2021 WL 6424469 (9th Cir. Dec. 29, 2021) .............................. 14
`Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.,
`889 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2018) ........................................................................................................... 18
`Dinan v. SanDisk LLC,
`No. 18-CV-05420-BLF, 2020 WL 364277 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2020), aff'd,
`844 F. App'x 978 (9th Cir. 2021) ..................................................................................................... 15
`Ebner v. Fresh, Inc.,
`838 F.3d 958 (9th Cir. 2016) ........................................................................................................... 13
`Erickson v. Pardus,
`551 U.S. 89 (2007) ........................................................................................................................... 12
`Govea v. Gruma Corp.,
`No. CV 20-8585-MWF (JCX), 2021 WL 1557748 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2021) ................................ 14
`Ham v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc.,
`70 F.Supp.3d 1188 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (Orrick, J.) ............................................................................ 18
`
`DEFENDANT BARILLA’S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`-3-
`Case No. 4:22-CV-03460-DMR
`
`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-03460-DMR Document 15 Filed 08/19/22 Page 4 of 24
`
`Hawyuan Yu v. Dr Pepper Snapple Grp., Inc.,
`No. 18-CV-06664-BLF, 2020 WL 5910071 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2020) ............................................ 13
`Hodges v. King's Hawaiian Bakery W., Inc.,
`No. 21-CV-04541-PJH, 2021 WL 5178826 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2021) ..................................... 14, 15
`IntegrityMessageBoards.com v. Facebook, Inc.,
`No. 18-CV-05286-PJH, 2020 WL 6544411 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2020) ........................................... 23
`In re Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Prod. Mktg., Sales Pracs. & Liab. Litig.,
`903 F.3d 278 (3d Cir. 2018)....................................................................................................... 17, 18
`Kane v. Chobani, Inc.,
`No. 12-CV-02425-LHK, 2013 WL 5289253 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2013)........................................ 20
`Kearns v. Ford Motor Co.,
`567 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................... 21, 22
`Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife,
`504 U.S. 555 (1992) ......................................................................................................................... 12
`Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor Co.,
`666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012), overruled on other grounds by Olean Wholesale
` Grocery Coop., Inc. v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, No. 19-56514, 2022 WL
`1053459 (9th Cir. Apr. 8, 2022) ................................................................................................ 11, 20
`McGee v. S-L Snacks Nat’l,
`982 F.3d 700 (9th Cir. 2020) ..................................................................................................... 17, 18
`Meridian Project Sys., Inc. v. Hardin Const. Co., LLC,
`404 F.Supp.2d 1214 (E.D. Cal. 2005).............................................................................................. 21
`Moore v. Kayport Package Exp., Inc.,
`885 F.2d 531 (9th Cir. 1989) ........................................................................................................... 21
`Nacarino v. Chobani, LLC,
`No. 20-CV-07437-EMC, 2021 WL 3487117 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2021) ......................................... 13
`Naimi v. Starbucks Corp.,
`798 F. App’x 67 (9th Cir. 2019) ...................................................................................................... 20
`Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`834 F.3d 220 (2d Cir. 2016)............................................................................................................. 18
`In re NVIDIA Corp. Sec. Litig.,
`768 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2014) ......................................................................................................... 12
`Romero v. Tropicale Foods, LLC,
`No. EDCV211165JGBSHKX, 2021 WL 6751908 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2021) ......................... 14, 15
`Salmon Spawning & Recovery All. v. Gutierrez,
`545 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2008) ......................................................................................................... 19
`Schmier v. U.S. Ct. of Appeals for Ninth Cir.,
`279 F.3d 817 (9th Cir. 2002) ........................................................................................................... 19
`
`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
`
`DEFENDANT BARILLA’S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`-4-
`Case No. 4:22-CV-03460-DMR
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03460-DMR Document 15 Filed 08/19/22 Page 5 of 24
`
`Shaker v. Nature’s Path Foods, Inc.,
`No. 13-cv-1138-GW(OPx), 2013 WL 6729802 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2013) .................................... 13
`Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp.,
`971 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2020) ..................................................................................................... 23, 24
`Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp.
`USA, 317 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2003) ............................................................................................... 21
`Warren v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp., Inc.,
`No. 19-CV-6448-RPK-LB, 2021 WL 5759702 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2021) ...................................... 16
`Whitmore v. Arkansas,
`495 U.S. 149 (1990) ......................................................................................................................... 13
`Wilson v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc.,
`961 F.Supp.2d 1134 (N.D. Cal. 2013) ....................................................................................... 17, 20
`State Cases
`Dumas v. Diageo PLC,
`No. 15CV1681 ................................................................................................................................. 15
`Jogan v. Superior Court,
`165 Cal. App. 4th 901 (2008) .......................................................................................................... 23
`Melchior v. New Line Prods., Inc.,
`106 Cal. App. 4th 779 (2003) .......................................................................................................... 23
`In re Tobacco II Cases,
`46 Cal.4th 298 (2009) ...................................................................................................................... 21
`Federal Statutes
`21 C.F.R.
`§ 101.18(c)(2)(i) ............................................................................................................................... 22
`15 U.S.C.
`§ 1065(3) .......................................................................................................................................... 22
`§ 1115(b) .......................................................................................................................................... 22
`California’s Legal Remedies Act ............................................................................................................. 7
`California’s Legal Remedies Act ..................................................................................................... 13, 21
`False Advertising Law ............................................................................................................................. 7
`False Advertising Law ............................................................................................................... 13, 21, 24
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) ........................................................................................ 12, 17
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) ........................................................................... 7
`Federal Trademark Law ..................................................................................................................... 7, 22
`Registered Trademark. Under the Lanham Act ..................................................................................... 22
`DEFENDANT BARILLA’S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`-5-
`Case No. 4:22-CV-03460-DMR
`
`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-03460-DMR Document 15 Filed 08/19/22 Page 6 of 24
`
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office or via a Lanham Act ............................................................................ 9
`Unfair Competition Law .......................................................................................................................... 7
`Unfair Competition Law ............................................................................................................ 13, 21, 24
`State Statutes
`Cal. Com. Code
`§ 2313(1)(b) ..................................................................................................................................... 16
`Cal. Health & Safety Code
`§ 111185........................................................................................................................................... 23
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 9(b) ........................................................................................ 7, 21
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 9(b) ............................................................................................ 21
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12 ............................................................................................... 13
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6)............................................................................ 7, 12, 13
`Report on Unfair and Deceptive Act And Practices Statutes, 1-29
`(Nat’l Consumer L. Ctr., ed., 2009) ................................................................................................. 14
`
`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
`
`DEFENDANT BARILLA’S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`-6-
`Case No. 4:22-CV-03460-DMR
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03460-DMR Document 15 Filed 08/19/22 Page 7 of 24
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on October 13, 2022, at 1:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as this
`matter may be heard in Courtroom 4, of the above-captioned Court, located at 1301 Clay Street, Oakland,
`CA 94612, Defendant Barilla America, Inc. (“Barilla”) will, and hereby does, move this Court for an order
`dismissing the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) filed by Plaintiffs Matthew Sinatro and Jessica Prost
`(together, “Plaintiffs”) with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)
`for the following reasons:
`1. Barilla’s use of the registered trademark, “Italy’s #1 Brand of Pasta”, is not deceptive to a
`reasonable consumer and the FAC is subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) as a matter
`of law (Counts I-III);
`2. Plaintiffs’ express warranty claim fails because Plaintiffs used Barilla’s Products as
`intended, and received the intended result (Count IV);
`3. Plaintiffs lack Article III standing because they have not alleged, and cannot allege, that
`Barilla caused them harm, including a failure to plausibly allege they have suffered a
`plausible economic injury, they were physically harmed, or there is a risk of future harm
`(Counts I-V). As such, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action;
`4. Plaintiffs lack standing to bring claims relating to Barilla Products they did not purchase
`(Counts I-V);
`5. Plaintiffs’ claims under state consumer statutes, including Unfair Competition Law
`(“UCL”) (Count I); False Advertising Law (“FAL”) (Count II); and California’s Legal
`Remedies Act (“CLRA”) (Count III)–all which are grounded in fraud—fail because they
`do not meet the heightened pleading requirement of Rule 9(b);
`6. Plaintiffs’ claims are preempted by Federal Trademark Law (Counts I-V); and
`7. Plaintiffs’ claim for unjust enrichment (Count V), request for an injunction and other
`equitable relief (Counts I-IV) fails as a matter of law because there are adequate legal
`remedies and Plaintiffs cannot allege a certainly impending injury, particularly where they
`should have been and now clearly are on notice regarding the Purchased Products’
`DEFENDANT BARILLA’S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`-7-
`Case No. 4:22-CV-03460-DMR
`
`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-03460-DMR Document 15 Filed 08/19/22 Page 8 of 24
`
`manufacture location.
`Barilla’s Motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the attached Memorandum of
`Points and Authorities, the Declaration of Erik K. Swanholt, the Proposed Order, accompanying materials,
`the pleadings and records on file in this action and such additional authority and argument as may be
`presented at the hearing on this Motion.
`
`DATED: August 19, 2022
`
`FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
`Erik K. Swanholt
`
`/s/ Erik K. Swanholt
`Erik K. Swanholt
`Attorney for Defendant Barilla
`America, Inc.
`
`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
`
`DEFENDANT BARILLA’S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`-8-
`Case No. 4:22-CV-03460-DMR
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03460-DMR Document 15 Filed 08/19/22 Page 9 of 24
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiffs assert that Defendant Barilla America, Inc.’s (“Barilla”) pasta packaging misled them
`into believing the products were made in Italy despite the packaging’s conspicuous statement that the
`products were made in the United States, not Italy. Plaintiffs’ First Amended Putative Class Action
`Complaint (“FAC”) should be dismissed.
`Plaintiffs’ FAC challenges Barilla’s use of a federally registered and incontestable trademark—
`“Italy’s #1 Brand of Pasta” (referred to herein as the “Registered Trademark”)1—on pasta boxes claiming
`that it is deceptive. A trademark is by definition, a “source identifier” that identifies and distinguishes a
`particular manufacturer (here, Barilla) and its products in the marketplace from those of its competitors.
`A federally registered trademark creates nationwide rights for an entity to use that trademark on its
`products. Here, Barilla’s registered trademark cannot be misleading as a matter of law, particularly where
`the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (“USPTO”) considered any merely descriptive or mis-descriptive
`aspects of the trademark and found that the mark was neither.
`In this case, Plaintiff Matthew Sinatro asserts that he bought one box of the Classic Barilla Blue
`Box Pasta (Angel Hair) with the Registered Trademark for $2.00 at a San Francisco area grocery store in
`the winter of 2021, and Plaintiff Jessica Prost (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) asserts she bought two boxes of
`the Classic Barilla Blue Box Pasta (Spaghetti) with the Registered Trademark for $2.00 each at a Los
`Angeles area grocery store in the fall of 2021 (collectively, the “Purchased Products”). They claim that
`the Registered Trademark misled them into believing that the Purchased Products were made in Italy.
`Plaintiffs deny reading the side label providing that the Purchased Products are “Made in the U.S.A. with
`U.S.A. and imported ingredients.” Ignoring the legal definition of a registered trademark as well as the
`statement of manufacture on the side label, Plaintiffs brought suit alleging that the Registered Trademark
`on 54 pasta products deceives consumers into assuming that Barilla made the Purchased Products, as well
`
`1 The Registered Trademark became incontestable on May 19, 2016. An incontestable trademark cannot
`be challenged at the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office or via a Lanham Act action as being
`geographically mis-descriptive given its incontestable nature. See Declaration of Erik Swanholt in
`Support of Request for Judicial Notice and Motion to Dismiss (“Swanholt Decl.”), ¶ 5, Ex. F (Notice of
`Acceptance Acknowledgement dated May 19, 2016 for U.S. Trademark Application No. 77/625331)
`DEFENDANT BARILLA’S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`-9-
`Case No. 4:22-CV-03460-DMR
`
`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-03460-DMR Document 15 Filed 08/19/22 Page 10 of 24
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`iv.
`
`as the other 52 products, in Italy. However, as discussed below, a reasonable consumer could not be misled
`here as a matter of law both because the Registered Trademark cannot be misleading as a matter of law
`and because the origin statement on the side of the box eliminates any possible confusion.
`II.
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
`A statement of the key issues to be decided by this Motion include:
`i. Would Barilla’s Registered Trademark be materially deceptive to a reasonable
`consumer?
`Have Plaintiffs alleged the requisite elements for establishing that the Registered
`Trademark is a warranty that could materially deceive a reasonable consumer?
`Do Plaintiffs have a requisite actual, concrete, or imminent injury fairly traceable to the
`Registered Trademark?
`Do Plaintiffs have standing to allege claims relating to any Barilla product bearing the
`Registered Trademark?
`Do Plaintiffs meet the heightened pleading requirements for their consumer statutory
`claims?
`Does federal trademark law preempt Plaintiffs’ state consumer statutory claims?
`Are Plaintiffs entitled to equitable relief, including an injunction, when they have legal
`remedies available and are now aware of Barilla’s disclaimers?
`THE REGISTERED TRADEMARK & PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGATIONS
`Barilla (through an affiliated company) has enjoyed “exclusive and continuous use since January
`of 2005” of “ITALY’S #1 BRAND OF PASTA®”—the “Registered Trademark”. Declaration of Erik
`Swanholt in Support of Request for Judicial Notice and Motion to Dismiss (“Swanholt Decl.”), ¶ 5, Ex. C
`(Response to Office Action dated September 1, 2009 for U.S. Trademark Application No. 77/625331).
`Because trademarks are not allowed to be geographically descriptive (i.e., a company may not obtain a
`trademark that merely indicates the Country of Manufacture), or mis-descriptive (i.e. falsely suggesting a
`place or origin), Barilla presented evidence, during the application process, to the USPTO that (1) the
`Registered Trademark had become “distinctive of the goods and/or services through [Barilla’s]
`substantially exclusive and continuous use in commerce of [the Registered Trademark] and of its
`
`v.
`
`vi.
`vii.
`
`III.
`
`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
`
`DEFENDANT BARILLA’S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`-10-
`Case No. 4:22-CV-03460-DMR
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03460-DMR Document 15 Filed 08/19/22 Page 11 of 24
`
`companion mark; and (2) the Registered Trademark’s “exclusive and continuous use has been on-going
`since January 2005.” Id. Barilla also subsequently provided additional evidence in the form of gross sales
`and internet searches of the Registered Trademark’s distinctiveness. Id. ¶ 6, Ex. D (Response to Office
`Action dated April 6, 2010 for U.S. Trademark Application No. 77/625331). Barilla’s evidence
`demonstrated that the Registered Trademark had been used, as intended, since 2005 as a way to distinguish
`its products from other pasta brands in the market rather than as an indication of where the pasta was
`manufactured. The USPTO allowed the mark to proceed to registration on August 31, 2010 resulting in
`U.S. Reg. No. 3,839,758. Id. ¶ 7, Ex. E (Registration Certificate dated August 31, 2010 for U.S. Trademark
`Application No. 77/625331). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ allegation that the Registered Trademark is
`misleading as to origin thus conflicts with the USPTO’s express finding that the Registered Trademark is
`a distinctive identifier of Barilla’s products. FAC ¶¶ 8, 9.
`Nevertheless, the side label of the Purchased Products (as well as the side labels of the other
`products Plaintiffs never saw) state that the pasta is made in the United States. See e.g., Swanholt Decl., ¶
`3, Ex. A; ¶ 4, Ex. B. Allegedly, neither Plaintiff reviewed these side panels. FAC ¶¶ 8, 9. Plaintiffs instead
`brought the instant lawsuit alleging they have no way of determining where the Purchased Products were
`made and this uncertainty prevents them from purchasing these Products again. Id.
`Relevant to these speculative allegations, Plaintiffs purport to bring claims not just on behalf of
`those who purchased the Purchased Products in California but also on behalf of a nationwide class. Id. ¶
`31. And they purport to bring claims not just for the Purchased Products, but also for 52 other Barilla pasta
`products (spread across four sub-brands) with the Registered Trademark; none of which were bought by
`Plaintiffs. Id. ¶ 4. For a variety of reasons, Plaintiffs cannot sustain their claims as plead, individually or
`as a class action, be it nationwide or in California (as explained in greater detail below). See e.g., Mazza
`v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012), overruled on other grounds by Olean Wholesale
`Grocery Coop., Inc. v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, No. 19-56514, 2022 WL 1053459 (9th Cir. Apr. 8, 2022)
`(where plaintiffs proposed California consumer-protection law should apply to the claims of all putative
`class members nationwide because the alleged wrongdoing supposedly emanated from that state, Ninth
`Circuit held this would contravene fundamental principles of federalism by ignoring the materially
`different consumer protection laws of the other states where the challenged transactions actually
`
`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
`
`DEFENDANT BARILLA’S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`-11-
`Case No. 4:22-CV-03460-DMR
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03460-DMR Document 15 Filed 08/19/22 Page 12 of 24
`
`occurred).
`IV.
`LEGAL STANDARD
`A.
`Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State A Claim
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows an attack on the pleadings for “failure to state a
`claim upon which relief can be granted.” “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). A complaint must include something more than “an unadorned, the-
`defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation” or “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of
`the elements of a cause of action.” Id. at 677. A court is “not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion
`couched as a factual allegation.” Id. at 678 (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
`Determining whether a complaint survives a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is a
`“context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common
`sense.” Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 679. In making this context-specific evaluation, this Court must construe the
`complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs and accept as true the well-pleaded factual allegations
`of the complaint. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93–94 (2007). However, this presumption does not
`apply to “a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 555. While the
`Court is limited to the complaint’s factual allegations, it may consider documents attached to or
`incorporated by the pleading or information judicially noticeable. See In re NVIDIA Corp. Sec. Litig., 768
`F.3d 1046, 1051 (9th Cir. 2014).
`B.
`Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) authorizes a party to seek dismissal of an action for lack
`of subject-matter jurisdiction. “Because standing and ripeness pertain to federal courts’ subject matter
`jurisdiction, they are properly raised in a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss.” Chandler v. State Farm Mut.
`Auto. Ins. Co., 598 F.3d 1115, 1122 (9th Cir. 2010). “[T]hose who seek to invoke the jurisdiction of the
`federal courts must satisfy the threshold requirement imposed by Article III of the Constitution by alleging
`an actual case or controversy.” City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101 (1983) (emphasis added).
`Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing standing elements. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560
`(1992). Before the Court can consider the merits of a legal claim, “the person seeking to invoke the
`
`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
`
`DEFENDANT BARILLA’S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`-12-
`Case No. 4:22-CV-03460-DMR
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03460-DMR Document 15 Filed 08/19/22 Page 13 of 24
`
`jurisdiction of the court must establish the requisite standing to sue.” Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149,
`154 (1990).
`V.
`ARGUMENT
`A.
`The FAC Fails to State a Claim Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)
`1.
`The Products’ Packaging Is Not Materially Deceptive to a Reasonable
`Consumer
`Plaintiffs’ state consumer protection claims (Counts I-III) fail because Plaintiffs cannot allege that
`the Registered Trademark on the Purchased Products would mislead a reasonable consumer. See, e.g.,
`FAC Counts I-III (including California’s UCL, FAL, and CLRA). Courts may determine at the Rule 12
`stage that a “reasonable consumer theory is not plausible as a matter of law.” See Hawyuan Yu v. Dr
`Pepper Snapple Grp., Inc., No. 18-CV-06664-BLF, 2020 WL 5910071, at *5, *7 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2020)
`(plaintiffs “failed to plausibly allege that a reasonable consumer would believe that the Products labeled
`natural are free of any trace pesticides whatsoever”).
`Under the “reasonable consumer” standard, Plaintiffs must plausibly allege that the label is
`“materially deceptive or misleading ‘to a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the
`circumstances.’” Nacarino v. Chobani, LLC, No. 20-CV-07437-EMC, 2021 WL 3487117, at *4 (N.D.
`Cal. Aug. 9, 2021); Carrea v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc., 475 F. App’x 113, 115 (9th Cir. 2012)
`(affirming dismissal under “reasonable consumer” standard where information “adjacent to” the
`challenged language discredited plaintiff’s theory of deception). This requires more than “a mere
`possibility that [the defendant’s] label might conceivably be misunderstood by some few consumers
`viewing it in an unreasonable manner.” Ebner v. Fresh, Inc., 838 F.3d 958, 965 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting
`Lavie v. Procter & Gamble Co., 105 Cal.App.4th 496, 508, 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 486 (2003)). Rather, a plaintiff
`must show a probability that “a significant portion of the general consuming public or of targeted
`consumers, acting reasonably in the circumstances, could be misled.” Id. (quoting Lavie, 105 Cal.4th at
`508). “The term likely [to deceive] indicates that deception must be probable, not just possible.” Shaker
`v. Nature’s Path Foods, In