Case 5:19-cv-07471-BLF Document 27 Filed 02/28/20 Page 1 of 27
`
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`DALE J. GIALI (SBN 150382)
`dgiali@mayerbrown.com
`KERI E. BORDERS (SBN 194015)
`kborders@mayerbrown.com
`350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90071-1503
`Telephone:
`(213) 229-9500
`Facsimile:
`(213) 576-8122
`Attorneys for Nestlé USA, Inc.
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`LINDA CHESLOW and STEVEN
`PRESCOTT, individually and on behalf of all
`others similarly situated,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`NESTLÉ USA, INC. and DOES 1 THROUGH
`10, inclusive.
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 5:19-cv-07471-BLF
`NESTLÉ USA, INC.’S NOTICE OF
`MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`AND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL
`NOTICE; AND MEMORANDUM OF
`POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
`SUPPORT THEREOF
`Hearing date: May 7, 2020
`Time: 9:00 a.m.
`Courtroom: 3
`Honorable Beth L. Freeman
`[Declaration of Dale J. Giali; and
`[Proposed] Order filed concurrently
`herewith]
`
`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
`
`NESTLÉ USA, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS;
`CASE NO. 5:19-cv-07471-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-07471-BLF Document 27 Filed 02/28/20 Page 2 of 27
`
`TO PLAINTIFFS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on May 7, 2020 at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as
`this matter may be heard, in Courtroom 3 of the San Jose Courthouse of this Court, located at
`280 South 1st Street, San Jose, CA 95113, before the Honorable Beth L. Freeman, defendant
`Nestlé USA, Inc. will and hereby does move the Court for an order dismissing the First
`Amended Complaint (ECF No. 13) and each claim therein filed by plaintiffs Linda Cheslow and
`Steven Prescott. This motion is made pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 9(b), and
`12(b)(6), based on the following grounds:
`1.
`Plaintiffs do not plausibly allege that the labeling of the Premier White
`Morsels baking product is false or misleading to a reasonable consumer in violation of Cal.
`Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq. (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500, et. seq.
`(“FAL”) and Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750, et seq. (“CLRA”).
`2.
`Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue their claims under the UCL, FAL, and
`CLRA because they cannot plausibly allege that they suffered an economic injury in reliance
`on the labeling and advertising for Premier White Morsels baking product.
`3.
`Plaintiffs lack Article III standing to pursue their claims for injunctive relief;
`4.
`Plaintiffs’ claims fail on the independent ground that plaintiffs have not pled
`them with particularity, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).
`PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE THAT Nestlé seeks judicial notice of
`images of the label of the challenged product.
`This motion is based on the attached memorandum of points of authorities and request for
`judicial notice, the accompanying Declaration of Dale J. Giali, all pleadings and documents on
`file in this case, and on such other written and oral argument as may be presented to the Court at
`the hearing on this matter.
`
`Dated: February 28, 2020
`
`
`
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`Dale J. Giali
`Keri E. Borders
`by: /s/ Dale J. Giali
`Dale J. Giali
`Attorneys for Defendant NESTLÉ USA, INC.
`
`1
`
`NESTLÉ USA, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS;
`CASE NO. 5:19-cv-07471-BLF
`
`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 5:19-cv-07471-BLF Document 27 Filed 02/28/20 Page 3 of 27
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`Have plaintiffs plausibly alleged deception, reliance, and damages based on the
`1.
`labeling of Nestlé’s Premier White Morsels baking product?
`2.
`Do plaintiffs lack statutory standing to pursue their claims under the UCL, FAL,
`and CLRA?
`
`3.
`Do plaintiffs lack Article III standing to pursue their claims for injunctive relief?
`4.
`Do plaintiffs comply with the heightened pleading standard of Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`9(b)?
`
`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
`
`2
`
`NESTLÉ USA, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS;
`CASE NO. 5:19-cv-07471-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-07471-BLF Document 27 Filed 02/28/20 Page 4 of 27
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`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
`
`Page(s)
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND.......................................................................................... 3
`A.
`Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint ..................................................................... 3
`B.
`Plaintiffs Participation In Identical Lawsuits ......................................................... 3
`LEGAL ARGUMENT .................................................................................................... 4
`A.
`Standard For Motion To Dismiss ........................................................................... 4
`B.
`Plaintiffs Fail To Plausibly Allege That The Labeling Of The White Chips
`Is False Or Misleading............................................................................................ 5
`Plaintiffs Lack Standing Under The UCL, FAL, And CLRA Because They
`Fail To Plausibly Allege Reliance ........................................................................ 11
`The Complaint Does Not Meet The Heightened Pleading Requirements Of
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) ............................................................................................... 12
`Plaintiffs’ Claim That Premier White Morsels Are Falsely Labeled As A
`“Premier” Baking Product Fails Because It Is Non-Actionable Puffery .............. 13
`Plaintiffs Lack Standing To Pursue Injunctive Relief .......................................... 14
`F.
`The Complaint Should Be Dismissed With Prejudice ......................................... 15
`G.
`REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE .......................................................................... 16
`A.
`Exhibit A Is A More Complete And Clearer Image Of The Product Label
`Included In Plaintiffs’ Complaint ......................................................................... 16
`Exhibit A Is Incorporated By Reference In The Complaint ................................. 16
`B.
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 18
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`i
`
`NESTLÉ USA, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS;
`CASE NO. 5:19-cv-07471-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-07471-BLF Document 27 Filed 02/28/20 Page 5 of 27
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`In re 100% Grated Parmesan Cheese Mktg. and Sales Practices Litig.,
`275 F.Supp.3d 910 (N.D. Ill. 2017) ...........................................................................................9
`
`Albrecht v. Lund,
`845 F.2d 193 (9th Cir. 1988) ...................................................................................................15
`
`Anderson v. Jamba Juice Co.,
`888 F. Supp. 2d 1000 (N.D. Cal. 2012) ...................................................................................17
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...................................................................................................................5
`
`Baltazar v. Apple, Inc.,
`2011 WL 3795013 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2011) ........................................................................14
`
`Beasley v. Lucky Stores, Inc.,
`400 F. Supp. 3d 942 (N.D. Cal. 2019) .....................................................................................12
`
`Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ...................................................................................................................4
`
`Boris v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
`35 F. Supp. 3d 1163 (C.D. Cal. 2014) .......................................................................................7
`
`Brazil v. Dole Packaged Foods, LLC,
`660 F. App’x 531 (9th Cir. 2016) ............................................................................................12
`
`Busey v. P.W. Supermarkets, Inc.,
`368 F. Supp. 2d 1045 (N.D. Cal. 2005) ...................................................................................17
`
`Bush v. Mondolez Int’l, Inc.,
`2016 WL 5886886 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2016)..............................................................................9
`
`Cafasso v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc.,
`637 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2011) ...........................................................................................12, 15
`
`Cheslow v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Company,
`Case No. 4:19-cv-07469-PJH (N.D. Cal.) .......................................................................3, 4, 13
`
`Colgan v. Leatherman Tool Grp., Inc.,
`135 Cal. App. 4th 663 (2006) ....................................................................................................5
`
`Conley v. Gibson,
`355 U.S. 41 (1957) .................................................................................................................4, 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
`
`ii
`
`NESTLÉ USA, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS;
`CASE NO. 5:19-cv-07471-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-07471-BLF Document 27 Filed 02/28/20 Page 6 of 27
`
`Cook, Perkiss & Liehe, Inc. v. N. Cal. Collection Serv., Inc.,
`911 F.2d 242 (9th Cir. 1990) ...................................................................................................13
`
`Cruz v. Anheuser-Busch, LLC,
`2015 WL 3561536 (C.D. Cal. June 3, 2015) .............................................................................7
`
`Cullen v. Netflix, Inc.,
`880 F.Supp.2d 1017 (N.D. Cal. 2012) .....................................................................................14
`
`Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.,
`889 F.3d 956 (9th Cir.) ......................................................................................................14, 15
`
`Ebner v. Fresh, Inc.,
`838 F.3d 958 (9th Cir. 2016) .....................................................................................................5
`
`Elias v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`903 F.Supp.2d 843 (N.D. Cal. 2012) .......................................................................................14
`
`Emery v. Visa Int’l Service Ass’n,
`95 Cal. App. 4th 952 (2002) ......................................................................................................7
`
`Freeman v. Time, Inc.,
`68 F.3d 285 (9th Cir. 1995) .......................................................................................................5
`
`In re Gerber Probiotic Sales Practices Litig.,
`2014 WL 5092920 (D.N.J. Oct. 10, 2014)...............................................................................13
`
`Gitson v. Trader Joe’s Co.,
`2013 WL 5513711 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2013)............................................................................18
`
`Hairston v. South Beach Beverage Co., Inc.,
`2012 WL 1893818 (C.D. Cal. May 18, 2012) ...........................................................................9
`
`Haskell v. Time, Inc.,
`857 F. Supp. 1392 (E.D. Cal. 1994)...........................................................................................5
`
`Hill v. Roll Int’l Corp.,
`195 Cal. App. 4th 1295 (2011) ..............................................................................................5, 7
`
`Hinojos v. Kohl’s Corp.,
`718 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2013) .................................................................................................11
`
`Hunter v. Nature’s Way Prods., LLC,
`2016 WL 4262188 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2016) .........................................................................13
`
`Jones v. Nutiva, Inc.,
`2016 WL 5210935 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2016) ........................................................................16
`
`Joslin v. Clif Bar & Co.,
`2019 WL 5690632 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2019) ........................................................................14
`iii
`
`NESTLÉ USA, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS;
`CASE NO. 5:19-cv-07471-BLF
`
`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 5:19-cv-07471-BLF Document 27 Filed 02/28/20 Page 7 of 27
`
`Kane v. Chobani, Inc.,
`2013 WL 5289253 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2013) ........................................................................18
`
`Kearns v. Ford Motor Co.,
`567 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) .................................................................................................12
`
`Knievel v. ESPN,
`393 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2005) .................................................................................................17
`
`Kuenzig v. Kraft Foods, Inc.,
`2011 WL 4031141 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 12, 2011) ........................................................................10
`
`Kwikset Corp. v. Super. Ct.,
`51 Cal. 4th 310 (2011) .............................................................................................................11
`
`Lavie v. Procter & Gamble Co.,
`105 Cal. App. 4th 496 (2003) ....................................................................................................5
`
`Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Publ’g.,
`512 F.3d 522 (9th Cir. 2008) ...................................................................................................15
`
`Lee v. City of Los Angeles,
`250 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2001) ...............................................................................................5, 17
`
`Macaspac v. Henkel Corp.,
`2018 WL 2539595 (S.D. Cal. June 4, 2018) ..............................................................................5
`
`Manchouck v. Mondelez Int’l, Inc.,
`2013 WL 5400285 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2013) ........................................................................15
`
`McKinnis v. Kellogg USA,
`2007 WL 4766060 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2007) ..........................................................................9
`
`McKinnis v. Sunny Delight Beverages Co.,
`2007 WL 4766525 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2007) ..........................................................................10
`
`McKinniss v. Gen. Mills, Inc.,
`2007 WL 4762172 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2007) ........................................................................16
`
`Miller v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co.,
`3:12-cv-04936-LB (N.D. Cal.)...................................................................................................4
`
`Morgan v. Wallaby Yogurt Co.,
`2014 WL 1017879 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2014) .........................................................................15
`
`Parent v. MillerCoors, LLC,
`2016 WL 3348818 (S.D. Cal. June 16, 2016) ..........................................................................10
`
`Prescott v. The Kroger Company,
`No. 19CV004055 (Monterey County Superior Court) ..............................................................4
`iv
`
`NESTLÉ USA, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS;
`CASE NO. 5:19-cv-07471-BLF
`
`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 5:19-cv-07471-BLF Document 27 Filed 02/28/20 Page 8 of 27
`
`Rahman v. Mott’s LLP,
`2018 WL 4585024 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2018) ........................................................................15
`
`Rasmussen v. Apple Inc.,
`27 F.Supp.3d 1027 (N.D. Cal. 2014) .......................................................................................13
`
`Reyes v. Crystal Farms Refrigerated Dist. Co.,
`2019 WL 3409883 (E.D.N.Y. July 26, 2019) ............................................................................8
`
`Samet v. Procter & Gamble Co.,
`2013 WL 3124647 (N.D. Cal. June 18, 2013) .........................................................................17
`
`Sarr v. BEF Foods, Inc.,
`2020 WL 729883 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 13, 2020)..............................................................................8
`
`Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc.,
`143 F.3d 1293 (9th Cir. 1998) .................................................................................................15
`
`Sumer v. Carrier Corp.,
`2015 WL 758314 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2015) ...........................................................................14
`
`In re Trader Joe’s Tuna Litig.,
`289 F. Supp. 3d 1074 (C.D. Cal. 2017) ...................................................................................17
`
`Truxel v. Gen. Mills Sales, Inc.,
`2019 WL 3940956 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2019) ..........................................................................8
`
`United States v. Ritchie,
`342 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2003) ...................................................................................................17
`
`Viggiano v. Hansen Nat. Corp.,
`944 F. Supp. 2d 877 (C.D. Cal. 2013) .....................................................................................13
`
`Viggiano v. Hansen Natural Corp.,
`2013 WL 2005430 (C.D. Cal. May 13, 2013) .........................................................................18
`
`Workman v. Plum, Inc.,
`141 F. Supp. 3d 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .....................................................................................9
`
`Yang v. Dar Al-Handash Consultants,
`250 Fed. App’x. 771 (9th Cir. 2007) .......................................................................................17
`
`Yumul v. Smart Balance, Inc.,
`733 F. Supp. 2d 1117 (C.D. Cal. 2010) ...................................................................................13
`
`Rules and Regulations
`
`21 C.F.R. § 101.3 .......................................................................................................................6, 10
`
`21 C.F.R. § 161.124 .......................................................................................................................10
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`v
`
`NESTLÉ USA, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS;
`CASE NO. 5:19-cv-07471-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-07471-BLF Document 27 Filed 02/28/20 Page 9 of 27
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 ...........................................................................................................................4, 5
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 .....................................................................................................................2, 3, 12
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 .....................................................................................................................14, 17
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 201 ...........................................................................................................................16
`
`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
`
`vi
`
`NESTLÉ USA, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS;
`CASE NO. 5:19-cv-07471-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-07471-BLF Document 27 Filed 02/28/20 Page 10 of 27
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Nestlé USA, Inc. manufactures and sells Premier White Morsels. As shown below, there
`are zero express or implied statements or representations anywhere on the product label that
`Premier White Morsels contain “white chocolate”:
`
`First Amended Compl. (“FAC”) ¶ 18; Declaration of Dale J. Giali (“Giali Decl.”) at Ex. A.
`Nevertheless, plaintiffs Linda Cheslow and Steven Prescott filed this lawsuit (and other
`identical lawsuits against other manufacturers), alleging that Premier White Morsels is
`affirmatively and falsely labeled and advertised as containing white chocolate. In fact, the word
`“chocolate” appears 227 times in the FAC. Excluding conclusory allegations, plaintiffs allege
`only that the Premier White Morsels is a white-colored baking chip found in the baking aisle of
`grocery stores (near products that might contain chocolate) and that Nestlé makes other baking
`products that contain chocolate. Based on those allegations and without identifying a single
`instance in which Nestlé represented (expressly, impliedly or otherwise) that the Premier White
`Morsels contain chocolate, plaintiffs allege that they assumed the product contained FDA
`standard-of-identity white chocolate.
`
`1
`
`NESTLÉ USA, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS;
`CASE NO. 5:19-cv-07471-BLF
`
`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 5:19-cv-07471-BLF Document 27 Filed 02/28/20 Page 11 of 27
`
`It’s little surprise that a complaint based on so flimsy a theory fails as a matter of law. As
`a threshold matter, plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege how or why either they, or a reasonable
`consumer, could have reasonably concluded—based on any representations, advertising, or
`actions by Nestlé—that the product is white chocolate. The product never refers to itself as
`chocolate. Moreover, the complaint makes clear that white chocolate is a federally defined food
`made from “cocoa butter, cocoa fat, or any other cocoa derivative.” FAC at ¶ 7. So, as plaintiffs
`acknowledge, if those ingredients are not in the product, it’s not white chocolate. But none of
`those ingredients appears in the ingredient list on the product label, as can be seen clearly by the
`federally-mandated ingredient list pictured below:
`
`Declaration of Dale J. Giali (“Giali Decl.”) at Ex. A. Because plaintiffs cannot identify any
`affirmative statement by Nestlé that the product contains white chocolate, Plaintiffs’ theory of
`deception falls into the well-recognized category where the law requires consumers to read the
`label—including the ingredient list—if they have any questions about the product.
`In addition to these fundamental deficiencies, the amended complaint warrants dismissal
`for failing to meet the heightened pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). Additionally,
`plaintiffs are not entitled to injunctive relief because they cannot allege any imminent danger of
`experiencing irreparable harm in the future. Plaintiffs now know the ingredients in the Premier
`White Morsels, and in any event, the ingredient list tells them what the product contains. Finally,
`plaintiffs’ alternative theory of liability—that the word “Premier” conveys that the product
`contains white chocolate—fails as a matter of law because the descriptor “premier” is
`non-actionable puffery that conveys no specific and testable fact, such as the presence or absence
`of cocoa butter. For each of the reasons above, and as discussed in greater detail below, Nestlé
`respectfully requests the dismissal of this action with prejudice.
`
`2
`
`NESTLÉ USA, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS;
`CASE NO. 5:19-cv-07471-BLF
`
`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 5:19-cv-07471-BLF Document 27 Filed 02/28/20 Page 12 of 27
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`A.
`Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint
`Plaintiff Cheslow allegedly bought Nestlé Premier White Morsels in or around late 2018
`at a Target in Santa Rosa, California. FAC at ¶ 51. Plaintiff Prescott allegedly bought the
`Premier White Morsels in December 2018 at a Target in Capitola, California. Id. at ¶ 50. Both
`plaintiffs allege that they relied on the “labeling, advertising, and placement” of the Premier
`White Morsels in making their purchasing decision and that they “reasonably believed [Premier
`White Morsels] contained real white chocolate” because “the name of the product included the
`term ‘White.” Id. at ¶¶ 50-51. Plaintiffs claim that three items caused them to think the Premier
`White Morsels contains standard-of-identity white chocolate: the picture of a white-chip cookie,
`the words “Premier” and “White” on the product label, and the fact that the product was sold in
`the baking aisle near other Nestlé products that contain milk or dark chocolate. Id.
`Plaintiffs further allege that Premier White Morsels does not met FDA’s standard of
`identity for white chocolate because it does not contain “cocoa butter, cocoa fat, or other cocoa
`derivatives.” Id. at ¶ 61. Plaintiffs do not allege when or how they became aware of FDA’s
`standard of identity for white chocolate, when they became aware Premier White Morsels was
`not white chocolate, that at the time they bought Premier White Morsels they intended to
`purchase only white chocolate, or that they reviewed the ingredient list before purchasing
`Premier White Morsels. Plaintiffs allege that had they known Premier White Morsels was not
`white chocolate, they would not have purchased the product. Id. at ¶ 64. Plaintiffs do not allege
`that they paid a premium, or otherwise overpaid, for Premier White Morsels.
`B.
`Plaintiffs Participation In Identical Lawsuits
`Plaintiffs Cheslow and Prescott are also plaintiffs in a materially identical case, filed on
`the same date, by the same law firm, entitled Cheslow v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Company, Case
`No. 4:19-cv-07467-PJH (N.D. Cal.) currently pending before Judge Phyllis Hamilton, in the
`Oakland Courthouse of the Northern District of California. In that case, plaintiffs make the
`identical allegations as in this case, i.e., that in or around the end of 2018 (at the same time as the
`purchases in this case) they purchased Ghirardelli’s Classic White Chips baking chips (at the
`3
`
`NESTLÉ USA, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS;
`CASE NO. 5:19-cv-07471-BLF
`
`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 5:19-cv-07471-BLF Document 27 Filed 02/28/20 Page 13 of 27
`
`same Target stores), mistakenly believing that they were buying white chocolate when they were
`not. Id. at ¶ 26-28. Shortly after suing Nestlé and Ghirardelli, plaintiff Prescott – again,
`represented by the same law firm – also sued the Kroger Company, alleging that its ChipMates
`white-chip cookie product is falsely advertised as containing white chocolate. See Prescott v. The
`Kroger Company, No. 19CV004055 (Monterey County Superior Court).
`In addition to this action and the current action against Ghirardelli Chocolate Company,
`Plaintiff Linda Cheslow participated in a previous class-action lawsuit against Ghirardelli
`Chocolate Company over white baking chips, Miller v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co., 3:12-cv-
`04936-LB (N.D. Cal.). In Miller, just like in the current Ghirardelli lawsuit, the plaintiff alleged
`that Ghirardelli’s Classic White Premium Baking Chips were deceptively labeled as containing
`white chocolate when they did not. The Miller plaintiffs praised the truthfulness and honesty of
`Nestlé’s labeling and advertising, specifically noting that Nestlé “nowhere states that the
`‘Premier White Morsels’ are ‘chocolate’ or ‘white chocolate.’” Miller, 3:12-cv-04936-LB, ECF
`No. 143 at ¶ 41. As part of the class-action settlement of Miller, Cheslow submitted a claim and
`swore under oath that she purchased more than half a dozen bags of Ghirardelli’s Premium
`Baking Chips—purchases that alerted her to the prospect that white baking chips might not
`contain “white chocolate” or “cocoa butter.” See Decl. of Eric N. Kierkegaard, filed in Cheslow
`v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co., case no. 4:19-cv-07467-PJH, at ECF No. 20-1 ¶¶ 7-15 (describing
`Cheslow’s participation in Miller). Cheslow’s participation in Miller, which praised the
`truthfulness and honesty of Nestlé’s labeling and advertising, underscores the implausibility of
`her claims here.
`III.
`LEGAL ARGUMENT
`A.
`Standard For Motion To Dismiss
`Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), a plaintiff must plead “a short and plain statement of the
`claim” and “show[]” that she is “entitled to relief.” This requires factual allegations that are
`sufficient to “’give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which
`it rests.’” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson,
`355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). These required “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to
`4
`
`NESTLÉ USA, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS;
`CASE NO. 5:19-cv-07471-BLF
`
`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 5:19-cv-07471-BLF Document 27 Filed 02/28/20 Page 14 of 27
`
`relief above the speculative level” (id.) and must “allow[] the court to draw the reasonable
`inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
`662, 678 (2009). Significantly, “[c]onclusory allegations of law . . . are insufficient to defeat a
`motion to dismiss.” Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 679 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal
`citation omitted). Conclusions of ultimate facts are treated like legal conclusions, not factual
`allegations, and are not to be credited in the Rule 8 analysis. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679-80.
`The primary evidence in a false advertising case is the actual advertising itself. Freeman
`v. Time, Inc., 68 F.3d 285, 290 (9th Cir. 1995). That means the Court must review the actual
`advertising itself to determine if it is false or misleading to a reasonable consumer. See, e.g.,
`Haskell v. Time, Inc., 857 F. Supp. 1392, 1399 (E.D. Cal. 1994) (“[I]f the alleged
`misrepresentation, in context, is such that no reasonable consumer could be misled, then the
`allegation may also be dismissed as a matter of law”). The best evidence of what the advertising
`says is the advertising itself, not the plaintiff’s subject interpretation (or here, misinterpretation)
`of the advertising. See Macaspac v. Henkel Corp., 2018 WL 2539595, at *6 (S.D. Cal. June 4,
`2018) (dismissing action where the label made it impossible for plaintiff to prove that a
`reasonable consumer was likely to be deceived).
`Moreover, a plaintiff’s false-advertising claims must satisfy the “reasonable consumer”
`test. Freeman, 68 F.3d at 289. Under this standard, the plaintiff must allege facts to show that
`“members of the public are likely to be deceived.” Id.; see also Colgan v. Leatherman Tool Grp.,
`Inc., 135 Cal. App. 4th 663, 682 (2006). This “likely to be deceived” standard requires a
`probability “that a significant portion of the general consuming public or of targeted consumers,
`acting reasonably under the circumstances, could be misled.” Lavie v. Procter & Gamble Co.,
`105 Cal. App. 4th 496, 508 (2003); Hill v. Roll Int’l Corp., 195 Cal. App. 4th 1295, 1304 (2011);
`Ebner v. Fresh, Inc., 838 F.3d 958, 965 (9th Cir. 2016).
`B.
`Plaintiffs Fail To Plausibly Allege That The Labeling Of The White Chips Is
`False Or Misleading
`Plaintiffs allege that Nestlé “affirmatively” misrepresented the nature and characteristics
`of Premier White Morsels because they are not white chocolate, and “[p]laintiffs and reasonable
`5
`
`NESTLÉ USA, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS;
`CASE NO. 5:19-cv-07471-BLF
`
`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 5:19-cv-07471-BLF Document 27 Filed 02/28/20 Page 15 of 27
`
`consumers reasonably believe the Product contains white chocolate based on the labeling and
`advertising of the Product.” FAC at ¶ 57. But plaintiffs’ claims of deception are not plausible
`because the labeling never represents that Premier White Morsels is white chocolate, and the
`ingredient list affirmatively discloses to consumers that they are not.
`First, and most obvious, the complaint is devoid of any well-pleaded factual allegations
`showing that Nestlé makes any statements or representations anywhere on the label that Premier
`White Morsels contain white chocolate. That’s because plaintiffs can’t allege a misstatement.
`The product label, which plaintiffs incorporate into the complaint, confirms there is no
`statement, express or implied, that the product contains white chocolate. FAC at ¶ 18; Giali
`Decl. at Ex. A; page 1, supra. Nestlé never states or suggests that the Premier White Morsels are
`white chocolate, and the words “white chocolate” or “cocoa butter” don’t appear anywhere on
`the label. Id. That means that this is a false advertising case without any plausible false
`advertising, which is fatal to the complaint.
`Not only is the product not labeled as white chocolate, but the absence of the name
`“white chocolate” on the product label independently dooms plaintiffs’ claims. If the product
`were made from white chocolate, the label would say so, as required by FDA regulations.
`21 C.F.R. § 101.3 (The statement of identity is the name of the food. It must appear on the front
`label, or principal display panel, as well as any alternate.) Therefore, the deliberate decision not
`to label the Premier White Morsels as “white chocolate” provides consumers with all the
`information they need to conclude that Premier White Morsels does not contain white chocolate.
`Indeed, compare the products pictured at paragraph 20 of the FAC (each of which contains
`chocolate and each of which declares prominently on the front of the package that it is “100%
`Real Chocolate”) with the Premier White Morsels product pictured at paragraph 18, which
`makes no representation whatsoever that the product contains white chocolate.
`Plaintiffs