throbber
Case 5:21-cv-05606-BLF Document 102 Filed 12/05/22 Page 1 of 34
`
`
`
`Jason J. Kim (State Bar No. 221476)
`kimj@huntonak.com
`HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
`550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
`Los Angeles, California 90071-2627
`Telephone: (213) 532-2000
`Facsimile: (213) 532-2020
`
`Ryan P. Phair (admitted pro hac vice)
`Leslie W. Kostyshak (admitted pro hac vice)
`Emma J. Hutchison (admitted pro hac vice)
`rphair@huntonak.com
`lkostyshak@huntonak.com
`ehutchison@huntonas.com
`HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
`2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20037
`Telephone: (202) 955-1921
`Facsimile: (202) 778-2201
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`BATH & BODY WORKS, LLC and BATH
`& BODY WORKS, INC.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CARMEN PEREZ and ANDREA BROOKS,
`on behalf of themselves and those similarly
`situated,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`BATH & BODY WORKS, LLC; BATH &
`BODY WORKS, INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
` CASE NO.: 5:21-CV-05606-BLF
`
`BBW’S MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND
`AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`Date:
`
`Time:
`Courtroom:
`
`
`May 4, 2023
`9:00 a.m.
`3
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Los Angeles, California 90071-2627
`550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
`Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
`
`
`
`5:21-CV-05606-BLF
`BBW’S MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-05606-BLF Document 102 Filed 12/05/22 Page 2 of 34
`
`
`
`HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
`
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, on May 4, 2023 at 9:00AM or as soon thereafter as this
`matter may be heard before the Honorable Beth Labson Freeman, in Courtroom 3 of the United
`States District Court of Northern California, located at 280 South First Street, 5th floor, San Jose,
`California 95113, Defendants Bath & Body Works, LLC (“BBW”) and Bath & Body Works, Inc.
`(“BBWI”) (collectively, “Defendants”) will and hereby do move this Court for an order pursuant to
`Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure dismissing Plaintiff’s Second Amended
`Complaint for lack of standing as to Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief and as to certain non-
`purchased products.
`
`Dated: December 5, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
` /s/ Jason J. Kim
`Ryan P. Phair
`Leslie W. Kostyshak
`Jason J. Kim
`Emma J. Hutchison
`Attorneys for Defendants
`BATH & BODY WORKS, LLC and
`BATH & BODY WORKS, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BBW’S MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`5:21-CV-05606-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
`
`Los Angeles, California 90071-2627
`550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
`Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-05606-BLF Document 102 Filed 12/05/22 Page 3 of 34
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................1 
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED ....................................................................................1 
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ....................................................................................................................1 
`
`ARGUMENT .........................................................................................................................................4 
`
`I. 
`
`PLAINTIFF DOES NOT HAVE STANDING TO ASSERT A CLAIM FOR
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ..................................................................................................4 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`Plaintiff Has Not—and Cannot—Establish Injury In Fact Under
`Davidson ............................................................................................................5 
`
`The Injunction Requested By Plaintiff Is Not Traceable To The Only
`Alleged Misrepresentation And Is Beyond The Powers Of The Court
`To Redress .......................................................................................................10 
`
`II. 
`
`III. 
`
`THERE IS NOTHING TO ENJOIN ............................................................................12 
`
`PLAINTIFF DOES NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE
`BODY POLISH ...........................................................................................................14 
`
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................................15 
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Los Angeles, California 90071-2627
`550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
`Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
`
`i
`
`BBW’S MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`5:21-CV-05606-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-05606-BLF Document 102 Filed 12/05/22 Page 4 of 34
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Anthony v. Pharmavite
`No. 18-cv-02636-EMC, 2019 WL 109446 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2019) ...............................................8
`
`Boyd v. United States
`No. 15-cv-03494-BLF, 2017 WL 1133512 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2017) .........................................13
`
`Cimoli v. Alacer Corp.
`546 F. Supp. 3d 897 (N.D. Cal. 2021) ...........................................................................................10
`
`Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA
`568 U.S. 398 (2013) .........................................................................................................................5
`
`Dalewood Holding LLC v. City of Baldwin Park
`859 F. App’x 62 (9th Cir. 2021) ....................................................................................................13
`
`Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.
`889 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2018) ................................................................................................. passim
`
`Hangarter v. Provident Life & Acc.t Ins. Co.
`373 F.3d 998 (9th Cir. 2004) .........................................................................................................12
`
`In re Coca-Cola Prods. Mktg and Sales Pracs. Litig.
`No. 20-15742, 2021 WL 3878654 (9th Cir. Aug. 31, 2021) .................................................6, 7, 12
`
`Khasin v. R.C. Bigelow, Inc.
`No. C 12–02204 JSW, 2013 WL 2403579 (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2013) ..........................................15
`
`Klaehn v. Cali Bamboo LLC
`No. 21-55738, 2022 WL 1830685 (9th Cir. June 3, 2022) ..............................................................5
`
`Lanovaz v. Twinings N. Am., Inc.
`726 F. App’x 590 (9th Cir. 2018) ....................................................................................................6
`
`Levay v. AARP, Inc.
`No. 17-09041, 2018 WL 3425014 (C.D. Cal. July 12, 2018) ..........................................................7
`
`Levay v. AARP, Inc.
`No. 17-09041, 2018 WL 5794456 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2018) ..........................................................6
`
`Los Angeles v. Lyons
`461 U.S. 95 (1983) ...........................................................................................................................5
`
`Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife
`504 U.S. 555 (1992) .........................................................................................................................4
`
`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
`
`i
`
`BBW’S MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`5:21-CV-05606-BLF
`
`Los Angeles, California 90071-2627
`550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
`Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-05606-BLF Document 102 Filed 12/05/22 Page 5 of 34
`
`
`
`Metzler Inv. GMBH v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc.
`540 F.3d 1049, 1064 n.7 (9th Cir. 2008) ......................................................................................13
`
`Miller v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co.
`912 F. Supp. 2d 861 (N.D. Cal. 2012) ...........................................................................................15
`
`Min Shook Shin v. Umeken USA, Inc.
`773 F. App’x 373 (9th Cir. 2019) ....................................................................................................8
`
`Nicolosi Distrib., Inc. v. FinishMaster, Inc.
`No. 18-cv-03587-BLF, 2019 WL 8883851 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2019) ........................................15
`
`Prescott v. Nestle USA, Inc.
`No. 19-cv-07471-BLF, 2020 WL 3035798 (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2020) .........................................6, 9
`
`Prescott v. Nestle USA, Inc.
`No. 19-cv-07471-BLF, 2022 WL 1062050 (N.D. Cal. April 8, 2022) ............................................9
`
`Risto v. Screen Actors Guild - Am. Fed’n of Television & Radio Artists
`No. 218CV07241, 2018 WL 7016345 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2018) ..................................................13
`
`Robles v. Gojo Indus.
`No. SACV 21-928, 2022 WL 2163846 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2022) .................................................9
`
`Shanks v. Jarrow Formulas, Inc.
`No. CV 18-09437, 2019 WL 7905745 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 2019) ............................................9, 10
`
`Sonner v. Premium Nutrition Corp.
`971 F.3d 834, 844 (9th Cir. 2020) ...................................................................................................2
`
`Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins
`578 U.S. 330 (2016) .....................................................................................................................4, 5
`
`Town of Chester, N.Y. v. Laroe Est., Inc.
`581 U.S. 433 (2017) .........................................................................................................................4
`
`Washington Env’t Council v. Bellon
`732 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir. 2013) .......................................................................................................11
`
`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
`
`Los Angeles, California 90071-2627
`550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
`Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
`
`ii
`
`BBW’S MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`5:21-CV-05606-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-05606-BLF Document 102 Filed 12/05/22 Page 6 of 34
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`INTRODUCTION
`On July 14, 2022, this Court granted Bath & Body Works, LLC and Bath & Body Works,
`Inc.’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff Carmen Perez’s request for injunctive relief in her First Amended
`Complaint for failure to satisfy the standard set by the Ninth Circuit in Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark
`Corp., 889 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2018). In an effort to revive her request, Plaintiff has now amended her
`Complaint. But the only amendments that pertain to her request for injunctive relief are cosmetic in
`nature and merely pay lip service to Davidson’s requirements. Indeed, despite multiple
`opportunities, Plaintiff still has not been able to articulate any injury in fact that is fairly traceable to
`the only remaining misrepresentation in the case and that the Court could redress through the
`issuance of an injunction. Moreover, the vague and prophylactic “obey the law” injunction requested
`by Plaintiff is far beyond what the Ninth Circuit ever contemplated in Davidson and would require
`the Court to improperly micromanage BBW’s advertising and marketing campaigns on an ex ante
`basis going forward. This unprecedent intrusion would violate the important constitutional
`limitations on standing proscribed by Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Accordingly, the Court
`should reject Plaintiff’s invitation to ignore Davidson and finally dismiss her request for injunctive
`relief with prejudice.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`Whether Plaintiff has amended the Complaint to properly allege standing to assert her
`request for injunctive relief after such request was previously dismissed.
`Whether Plaintiff has amended the Complaint to properly allege standing for claims related
`to the unpurchased Mineral Body Polish.
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`On July 21, 2021, Plaintiff Andrea Brooks and Carmen Perez brought this putative California
`class action against Bath & Body Works, LLC and Bath & Body Works, Inc. (collectively “BBW”
`or “Defendants”) alleging that certain moisturizing claims associated with BBW’s Hyaluronic Acid
`Products constituted false advertising. ECF No. 1. BBW moved to dismiss the Complaint on
`numerous grounds, including lack of standing to assert injunctive relief and to challenge certain
`
`1
`
`BBW’S MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`5:21-CV-05606-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
`
`Los Angeles, California 90071-2627
`550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
`Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-05606-BLF Document 102 Filed 12/05/22 Page 7 of 34
`
`
`
`unpurchased products. In an attempt to avoid dismissal, however, Plaintiffs filed an untimely
`Amended Complaint, which the Court struck sua sponte. ECF Nos. 22, 26, 27. After the motion was
`fully briefed, Plaintiffs requested to amend the Complaint to fix the numerous issues BBW identified
`in its Motion. See ECF Nos. 22, 29, 35.
`On January 10, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). ECF No. 47.
`The FAC again alleged that numerous claims were false and misleading and, in addition to damages,
`sought injunctive relief. The requested form of injunctive relief, however, was unclear and internally
`inconsistent. The Prayer for Relief sought a broad, prophylactic injunction prohibiting BBW from
`making any representation regarding the moisturizing properties of any products containing
`hyaluronic acid without “competent and reliable evidence,” as defined by Plaintiffs. See FAC at
`Prayer for Relief. But, elsewhere in the Complaint, Plaintiffs requested different forms of injunctive
`relief, including an injunction prohibiting BBW from offering hyaluronic acid products unless and
`until it removed the alleged misrepresentations and disclosed omitted facts. See FAC at ¶¶ 79, 91-92,
`123. Despite the varying requests, however, neither Plaintiff alleged any desire to purchase the
`product as advertised or, for that matter, at all. Instead, Plaintiff Perez only alleged that she had a
`general desire to purchase “other” cosmetic products from BBW and therefore did not even assert
`any future injury associated with BBW’s Hyaluronic Acid products. FAC ¶ 51.
`BBW subsequently filed a motion to dismiss on numerous grounds.1 See ECF No. 57. After
`oral argument, this Court issued an Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part BBW’s Motion to
`Dismiss. ECF No. 79. The Court dismissed claims related to all but one of Plaintiff’s alleged
`misrepresentations such that, at this point, the only remaining claim at issue is the allegedly false
`
`
`1 In BBW’s motion to dismiss, BBW challenged Plaintiff’s request for equitable relief, including
`injunctive relief, under Sonner v. Premium Nutrition Corp., 971 F.3d 834, 844 (9th Cir. 2020). The
`Court disagreed. ECF No. 79. BBW continues to believe that Sonner requires dismissal, but in light
`of the Court’s prior order does not re-assert that previously decided argument herein. BBW
`nonetheless reserves all rights to challenge Plaintiff’s request for equitable relief. Id. at 845
`(affirming dismissal of CLRA and UCL claims for failure to allege lack of adequate remedy at law).
`
`2
`
`BBW’S MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`5:21-CV-05606-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
`
`Los Angeles, California 90071-2627
`550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
`Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-05606-BLF Document 102 Filed 12/05/22 Page 8 of 34
`
`
`
`statement that hyaluronic acid “attracts and retains up to 1,000x its weight in water to make skin
`look smoother and more supple.” Id. In addition, the Court had little trouble dismissing the
`injunctive relief claims pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s seminal decision in Davidson v. Kimberly-
`Clark Corp., 889 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2018). Without addressing any of the other issues associated
`with Plaintiff’s injunctive relief claim, the Court noted that Plaintiff had failed to even allege the
`requisite desire to purchase any of the challenged products in the future again under Davidson. There
`was therefore no need to address the other defects associated with Plaintiff’s injunctive relief claim.
`Plaintiff Carmen Perez has now filed her Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”).2 See ECF
`No. 95. In so doing, Plaintiff made no changes to clarify her vague and inconsistent requests for
`injunctive relief. Instead, the only change to her stated basis for seeking injunctive relief is to make a
`small cosmetic change to the only paragraph that deals with her standing to seek such relief. A
`redline of this single paragraph shows that Plaintiff now simply included the Hyaluronic Acid
`products at issue, as well as other unspecified BBW moisturizing products, in her future purchase
`desires:
`
`5197. Ms. Perez continues to want to purchase Bath & Body Works
`products that could help improve the appearance of her skin, including,
`specifically, Bath & Body Works Hyaluronic Acid and moisturizing
`products such as those described above. She desires to purchase these
`and other cosmetic products from B&BW, and regularly visits B&BW
`stores where Defendants’ products are sold. Without purchasing and
`having the Products professionally tested or consulting scientific
`experts, Ms. Perez will be unable to determine if representations that
`Defendants make regarding the properties and feature features of its
`products are true. Ms. Perez understands that the formulation of
`Defendants’ Products may change over time or that Defendants may
`choose to market other products that contain misleading representations
`about the product. But as long as Defendants may use inaccurate
`representations about the capabilities of their hyaluronic acid products,
`then when presented with Defendants’ advertising, Ms. Perez continues
`to have no way of determining whether the representations regarding
`those capabilities are true. Thus, Ms. Perez is likely to be repeatedly
`presented with false or misleading information when shopping and
`
`2 Plaintiff Andrea Brooks’ claims have been stayed pending the resolution of her arbitration. See
`ECF No. 77. Consequently, this Motion will refer to Carmen Perez as the sole Plaintiff and will use
`the term “Plaintiff” for the remainder of this Motion.
`
`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
`
`3
`
`BBW’S MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`5:21-CV-05606-BLF
`
`Los Angeles, California 90071-2627
`550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
`Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-05606-BLF Document 102 Filed 12/05/22 Page 9 of 34
`
`
`
`unable to make informed decisions about whether to purchase
`Defendants’ products. Thus, she is likely to be repeatedly misled by
`Defendants’ conduct, unless and until Defendants are compelled to
`utilize accurate representations regarding the actual capabilities of
`hyaluronic acid.
`
`I.
`
`SAC at ¶ 97 (changes highlighted in bold). This is the first time that Plaintiff has ever asserted any
`desire to purchase BBW’s Hyaluronic Acid products in the future. Despite this curiously timed
`epiphany, however, Plaintiff never asserts that she would like to purchase the Hyaluronic Acid
`products as advertised in the future—meaning with the 1,000x claim—presumably because the
`entire thrust of her complaint is that this claim is categorically false and impossible to achieve.
`ARGUMENT
`PLAINTIFF DOES NOT HAVE STANDING TO ASSERT A CLAIM FOR
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`The doctrine of standing is “an essential and unchanging part” of the case-or-controversy
`requirement of Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560
`(1992). The “irreducible constitutional minimum” of Article III standing consists of three elements.
`Id. at 560-61. Plaintiff “must have (1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the
`challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorably judicial
`decision.” Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 338 (2016). As the party invoking federal
`jurisdiction, Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing these elements and, at the pleading stage, must
`“‘clearly … allege facts demonstrating’ each element.” Id. In addition, standing is not “dispensed in
`gross.” Town of Chester, N.Y. v. Laroe Est., Inc., 581 U.S. 433, 434 (2017). To the contrary, Plaintiff
`“must demonstrate standing for each claim [s]he seeks to press and for each form of relief that is
`sought.” Id.
`Plaintiff has not—and cannot—establish standing for her request for injunctive relief. This
`Court has already dismissed Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief on standing grounds and, while
`the Court provided Plaintiff with an opportunity to amend her complaint to attempt to establish the
`constitutional prerequisites for standing, Plaintiff has once again failed to do so. The SAC makes
`
`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
`
`Los Angeles, California 90071-2627
`550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
`Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
`
`4
`
`BBW’S MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`5:21-CV-05606-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-05606-BLF Document 102 Filed 12/05/22 Page 10 of 34
`
`
`
`only one minor cosmetic change that fails to alleviate the defects in her claim for injunctive relief.
`The Court should, therefore, dismiss her request for injunctive relief with prejudice.
`A.
`Plaintiff Has Not—and Cannot—Establish Injury In Fact Under Davidson
`The “injury in fact” requirement is the “first and foremost” requirement of constitutional
`standing. Spokeo, 578 U.S. at 338. To satisfy this important requirement, Plaintiff Perez must show
`that she suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest that is both (1) “concrete and
`particularized” and (2) “actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Id. at 339. In the
`context of injunctive relief, this means that the injury that would allegedly occur but for the
`requested relief “must be certainly impending.” Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398, 409
`(2013) (emphasis in original). It is not enough to assert that she has been injured in the past; instead,
`she must show that there is a “real or immediate threat” that she will again be wronged “in a similar
`way.” Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 111 (1983). Mere allegations of possible future injury,
`however, are not sufficient. Spokeo, 578 U.S. at 338.
`The Ninth Circuit has repeatedly emphasized that allegedly deceived consumers must plead
`facts sufficient to establish standing for injunctive relief in false advertising cases. See Klaehn v.
`Cali Bamboo LLC, No. 21-55738, 2022 WL 1830685, at *3 (9th Cir. June 3, 2022). Traditionally,
`district courts in the Ninth Circuit were rightfully skeptical of claims for injunctive relief in false
`labeling cases by consumers who were allegedly deceived. Davidson at 967-68 (explaining circuit
`split on pleading standard for injunctive relief in false advertising cases). The reasoning was simple:
`plaintiffs who are already aware of the deceptive nature of an advertisement are not likely to be
`misled into buying the relevant product in the future and, therefore, are not capable of being harmed
`in the same way. See, e.g., Davidson, 889 F.3d at 966-73. Accordingly, while such consumers could
`sue for damages as a remedy for the prior deception, they did not have standing to sue for injunctive
`relief when there was no possibility of future harm, let alone certainly impending future harm.
`In Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., the Ninth Circuit surveyed this existing body of case
`law and held that it was a “close question” whether standing could ever lie in such circumstances.
`Davidson, 889 F.3d at 971. Nonetheless, the Ninth Circuit expressed concern with establishing a
`bright-line rule that injunctive relief would never be available for a consumer who learns after
`
`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
`
`5
`
`BBW’S MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`5:21-CV-05606-BLF
`
`Los Angeles, California 90071-2627
`550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
`Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-05606-BLF Document 102 Filed 12/05/22 Page 11 of 34
`
`
`
`purchasing a product that the label is false. Id. at 970. Instead, the Ninth Circuit held that a
`previously deceived consumer “may,” in certain circumstances, have standing to seek an injunction
`against false advertising or labeling. Id. at 969. But the Court was clear that the resolution of that
`question would depend on the facts alleged in the Complaint and that those allegations must satisfy
`the “plausibility” standard at the pleading stage just like any other. Id. at 964. Subsequent Ninth
`Circuit cases, moreover, have made clear that the circumstances in which standing may lie under
`Davidson are limited. See, e.g., In re Coca-Cola Prods. Mktg and Sales Pracs. Litig., No. 20-15742,
`2021 WL 3878654 (9th Cir. Aug. 31, 2021) (dismissing injunctive relief claims under Davidson
`based on factual deficiencies); Lanovaz v. Twinings N. Am., Inc., 726 F. App’x 590 (9th Cir. 2018)
`(same). See also Prescott v. Nestle USA, Inc., No. 19-cv-07471-BLF, 2020 WL 3035798, at *6 (N.D.
`Cal. June 4, 2020) (Freeman, J.) (Davidson only applies in “certain circumstances”) (“Prescott I”);
`Levay v. AARP, Inc., No. 17-09041, 2018 WL 5794456, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2018) (Davidson
`only applies in “certain circumstances”).
`The actual holding in Davidson thus turned on the specific facts alleged in the complaint.
`Davidson involved an allegedly false and deceptive claim by Kimberly-Clark that its pre-moistened
`wipes were “flushable.” To support their claim for injunctive relief, the deceived plaintiffs alleged
`that they “continue[d] to desire to purchase wipes that are suitable for disposal in a household toilet”
`and “would purchase truly flushable wipes manufactured by [Kimberly-Clark] if it were possible.”
`Davidson, 889 F.3d at 970 (internal quotations omitted). They therefore alleged that this desire—the
`desire to purchase Kimberly-Clark’s “flushable” wipe products as advertised if it were possible—
`was sufficient to establish standing. Id. at 971. The injury associated with this desire arose from the
`confusion that supposedly would occur when plaintiff was shopping in stores in the future, saw
`Kimberly-Clark’s wipes marketed as “flushable,” and couldn’t rely on the representation that the
`product was, in fact, truly flushable when she was considering whether to purchase it and, as a result,
`chose not to purchase it. Id. at 966, 971-72.
`The SAC, however, has come nowhere close to satisfying the Davidson standard in many
`critical respects. As an initial matter, unlike Davidson, Plaintiff has—tellingly—not alleged that she
`wishes to purchase BBW’s product as advertised. That alone is sufficient to warrant dismissal of her
`
`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
`
`6
`
`BBW’S MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`5:21-CV-05606-BLF
`
`Los Angeles, California 90071-2627
`550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
`Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-05606-BLF Document 102 Filed 12/05/22 Page 12 of 34
`
`
`
`injunctive relief claim under Davidson. Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has squarely held that a plaintiff’s
`failure to allege that she wishes to purchase the product as advertised in the future is fatal to her
`standing to seek injunctive relief. For example, in In re Coca-Cola, the Ninth Circuit recently
`dismissed an injunctive relief claim at the pleading stage because none of the plaintiffs alleged “a
`desire to purchase Coke as advertised” and therefore could not establish any injury in fact. 2021 WL
`3878654 at *2 (emphasis in original). Numerous courts within the Ninth Circuit have reached similar
`results. See, e.g., Levay v. AARP, Inc., No. 17-09041, 2018 WL 3425014, at *3 (C.D. Cal. July 12,
`2018) (dismissing injunctive relief claim because Davidson required plaintiffs to allege a desire to
`purchase products “if it were to perform as advertised” and no such facts were alleged).
`This only stands to reason. To hold otherwise would turn Davidson on its head. As noted
`above, Davidson was concerned about previously deceived consumers “never” being able to
`establish standing and, as a result, it contemplated “limited circumstances” in which standing might
`be established if the previously deceived customer wanted to purchase the product as advertised in
`the future. But if all a plaintiff need do is allege a general desire to purchase an unspecified product
`in the future, no matter how the product may then be advertised, then the alleged injury would not be
`traceable to the claims at issue in the lawsuit and any plaintiff could establish standing simply by
`invoking the magic words. The limited exceptions contemplated by Davidson would therefore
`swallow the rule and an important constitutional limitation would be erased.
`Second, even if Plaintiff had made the necessary allegation, Davidson makes it clear that
`pleading standards still apply. To satisfy Article III, the allegation of injury must not only meet the
`plausibility standard just like any other but it also must meet the standards for concreteness,
`particularity, and imminence required by constitutional standing principles. Davidson, 889 F.3d at
`967. This is important because here, unlike in Davidson, there is reason to discount Plaintiff’s
`newfound intent to purchase various BBW products, including BBW’s Hyaluronic Acid products, in
`the future. Indeed, it is telling that Plaintiff never once alleged that she desired to purchase BBW’s
`Hyaluronic Acid products, let alone as advertised, until her injunctive relief claim was dismissed and
`she filed her SAC. It was only then—15 months after filing her Complaint and after her injunctive
`relief claim was dismissed—that she had this sudden epiphany. Moreover, during this time, Plaintiff
`
`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
`
`7
`
`BBW’S MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`5:21-CV-05606-BLF
`
`Los Angeles, California 90071-2627
`550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
`Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-05606-BLF Document 102 Filed 12/05/22 Page 13 of 34
`
`
`
`has steadfastly insisted that BBW’s hyaluronic acid products don’t work and are essentially
`worthless. As such, it strains credulity for her to now suggest that she has developed a newfound
`desire to purchase products she deems to be worthless in the future. See Min Shook Shin v. Umeken
`USA, Inc., 773 F. App’x 373, 375 (9th Cir. 2019) (affirming dismissal of request for injunctive relief
`on plausibility grounds where plaintiff claimed product was “worthless” because “a plaintiff
`certainly will not purchase a worthless product in the future”). This is likely why she can only make
`a conclusory allegation. She is attempting to pay lip service to Davidson in a last-ditch attempt to
`revive a previously dismissed claim, rather than actually satisfying the important constitutional
`limitations imposed by Article III.
`In truth, of course, the real reason why she is not able to allege a desire to purchase the
`product as advertised in the future is because the gravamen of her entire complaint is that it is
`impossible for hyaluronic acid to ever retain 1,000x its weight in water. Davidson held that an injury
`based on a desire to make future purchases would only be concrete if it were possible for the product
`to be truthfully sold as advertised in the future, thereby creating the confusion regarding the future
`accuracy of that claim that caused her not to buy the product and served as the basis for her
`informational injury. Indeed, at the motion to dismiss stage, the Ninth Circuit held in Davidson that
`Plaintiff’s allegation that she “would purchase truly flushable wipes manufactured by Kimberly-
`Clark if it were possible” is what made her injury “concrete.” 889 F.3d at 971 (emphasis added). But
`Plaintiff here cannot plausibly allege that she would purchase BBW’s Hyaluronic Acid products in
`the future if hyaluronic acid truly retained 1,000x its weight in water because she has elsewhere
`alleged that this is impossible. The Complaint specifically alleges that the 1,000x claim is “false”
`and that hyaluronic acid is categorically “incapable of attracting or absorbing anywhere near 1,000
`times its weight in water.” SAC at ¶ 71 (emphasis added). Since that allegation must be accepted as
`true at the pleading stage, Plaintiff lacks standing by her own admission.
`This reasoning is best illustrated by an analogous case. In Anthony v. Pharmavite, plaintiffs
`challenged a manufacturer’s claim that a supplement cont

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket