Case: 1:20-cv-05543 Document #: 21-1 Filed: 11/12/20 Page 1 of 37 PageID #:99
`Case: 1:20-cv-05543 Document #: 21-1 Filed: 11/12/20 Page 1 of 37 PageID #:99
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-05543 Document #: 21-1 Filed: 11/12/20 Page 2 of 37 PageID #:100
`Case: 1:20-cv-05543 Document #: 21-1 Filed: 11/12/20 Page 2 of 37 PageID #:100
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`No. 1:20-cv-05543
`
`Judge Andrea R. Wood
`Magistrate Judge Jeffery Cummings
`
`)
`)
`
`) )
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`) )
`
`)
`
`KENNETH MEYERS,
`on behalf of Plaintiff and the
`class members described herein,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`ARIZONA BEVERAGES USA LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S
`
`MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
`
`OR, ALTERNATIVELY, TO TRANSFER VENUE
`
`SAUL EWING ARNSTEIN & LEHR LLP
`
`161 North Clark Street, Suite 4200
`
`Chicago, Illinois 60514
`Telephone: (312) 351-3292
`Casey. grabenstein@saul. com
`
`-and—
`
`McELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY &
`
`CARPENTER, LLP
`
`570 Broad Street, Suite 1500
`
`Newark, New Jersey 07102
`Telephone: (973) 622-7711
`rdonovan@mdmc-Zaw. com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant,
`Arizona Beverages USA LLC
`
`Robert P. Donovan, Esq.,
`Of Counsel and on the Brief
`
`(Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-05543 Document #: 21-1 Filed: 11/12/20 Page 3 of 37 PageID #:101
`Case: 1:20-cv-05543 Document #: 21-1 Filed: 11/12/20 Page 3 of 37 PageID #:101
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... iii
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS GERMANE TO MOTION .................................................................. 3
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Allegations Concerning Venue ............................................................................................ 3
`
`Assertions About Purchases ................................................................................................. 4
`
`III.
`
`Claims of Mislabeling .......................................................................................................... 4
`
`LEGAL ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 5
`
`I.
`
`The Complaint Fails to State Any Claim ............................................................................. 5
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiff” 5 Claims Are Expressly Preempted Because the
`Complaint Does Not State a Claim of a FDCA Violation
`Based Upon the Applicable Testing Standard to Determine
`Calorie Content ........................................................................................................ 6
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Testing Standards Under 21 CPR. § 101.9(0) ............................................ 7
`
`Preemption Applies Because Plaintiff Fails to Allege
`Lack of Calorie Content Based Upon the FDA Standard ............................ 8
`
`Plaintiff’s Bare Bones Pleading Cannot be Fairly Read
`To State a Violation of the FDCA ............................................................... 9
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Plaintiff’s Conclusory Allegations About Calorie Content Do
`Not Satisfy the Standards Under Twombly and Iqbal ............................................ 11
`
`No Pre-Suit Notice of Breach of Warranty is Alleged and
`Counts I and II Fail as a Matter of Law ................................................................. 13
`
`No Legal Basis Exists to Claim Breach of Implied Warranty
`Under the Magnuson—Moss Warranty Act ............................................................. 14
`
`E.
`
`The ICFA and IDCSA Safe Harbor Provisions Bar Plaintiff’s
`
`Claims Under Counts III and V ............................................................................. 16
`
`F.
`
`Pre-Suit Notice is Required Before a Claim Can be Filed
`
`#4355084
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-05543 Document #: 21-1 Filed: 11/12/20 Page 4 of 37 PageID #:102
`Case: 1:20-cv-05543 Document #: 21-1 Filed: 11/12/20 Page 4 of 37 PageID #:102
`
`Under the IDCSA ................................................................................................... 17
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`The Fraud Claims Lack Particularity as Required Under Rule 9(b) ...................... 17
`
`Plaintiff Does Not Plead All the Elements Necessary to State a
`Claim for Common Law Fraud .............................................................................. 18
`
`11.
`
`Transfer of Venue of This Matter is Proper Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) ........................... 19
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Venue is Proper in the Transferor District ............................................................. 21
`
`The Eastern District of New York is a More Convenient Venue .......................... 21
`
`l.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiffs Choice of Forum ....................................................................... 21
`
`Situs of Material Events ............................................................................. 23
`
`Relative Base and Access to Sources of Proof........................................... 24
`
`Convenience of the Witnesses ................................................................... 24
`
`Convenience of the Parties of Litigating in Respective Forums ................ 25
`
`C.
`
`It is in the Interest of Justice That Venue Be Transferred to the
`Eastern District of New York ................................................................................ 25
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Speed to Trial ............................................................................................. 25
`
`Familiarity of Each Forum With the Applicable Law ............................... 26
`
`Desirability of Resolving Controversies in Each Locale ........................... 26
`
`Relation of Each Community in the Occurrence at Issue .......................... 27
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................. 28
`
`#4355084
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-05543 Document #: 21-1 Filed: 11/12/20 Page 5 of 37 PageID #:103
`Case: 1:20-cv-05543 Document #: 21-1 Filed: 11/12/20 Page 5 of 37 PageID #:103
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`Page(s)
`
`AB. C. Horne & Real Estate Inspection, Inc. v. Plummer,
`500 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986) ....................................................................................... 7
`
`Advantage Eng ’g, Inc. v. Burks Pumps, Inc.,
`No. 93-3883, 1994 WL 317126 (7th Cir. June 30, 1994) ........................................................ 14
`
`AL & P0 Corp. v. Am. Healthcare Capital, Inc,
`No. 14—1905, 2015 WL 738694 (ND. 111. Feb. 19,2015) ....................................................... 21
`
`Amoco Oil Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp,
`90 F. Supp. 2d 958 (ND. 111. 2000) ............................................................................ 20, 21, 25
`
`Anchor Wall Sys, Inc. v. R&D Concrete Prods, Inc,
`55 F. Supp. 2d 871 (N.D.111. 1999) .........................................................................................22
`
`Arcor, Inc. v. Textron, Inc,
`960 F.2d 710 (7th Cir. 1992) ................................................................................................... 14
`
`Armstrong v. LaSalle Bank Nat ’l Ass ’n,
`552 F.3d 613 (7th Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................... 19
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ......................................................................................................... passim
`
`Baldwin v. Star Scientific, Inc,
`No. 14-588, 2016 WL 397290 (ND. 111. Feb 2,2016) ............................................................ 13
`
`Beaton v. SpeedyPC Software,
`No. 13-08389, 2014 WL 4376219 (ND. 111. Sept. 2, 2014) ................................................ 3, 18
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ......................................................................................................... passim
`
`Body Sci. LLC v. Boston Sci. Corp,
`846 F. Supp. 2d 980 (ND. 111. 2012) .................................................................................20, 21
`
`Boulet v. National Presto Industries, Inc,
`No. 11-840, 2012 WL 12996297 (W.D. Wis. May 7, 2012) ............................................... 3, 18
`
`Braddock v. Jolie,
`No. 11-8597, 2012 WL 2282219 (ND. 111. June 15, 2012) ..................................................... 21
`
`#4355084
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-05543 Document #: 21-1 Filed: 11/12/20 Page 6 of 37 PageID #:104
`Case: 1:20-cv-05543 Document #: 21-1 Filed: 11/12/20 Page 6 of 37 PageID #:104
`
`Brownmark Films, LLC v. Comedy Partners,
`682 F.3d 687 (7th Cir. 2012) ..................................................................................................... S
`
`Burke v. Weight Watchers Int’l, Inc.,
`983 F. Supp. 2d 478 (D.N.J. 2013) ........................................................................................ 8, 9
`
`Cofley v. VanDorn Iron Works,
`796 F.2d 217 (7th Cir. 1986) ........ . .......................................................................................... 20
`
`Comfax Corp. v. N. Am. Van Lines, Inc.,
`587 N.E.2d 118 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992) ................................................................................... 3, 18
`
`Cornerstone Design, Ltd. v. Lumatec USA, Inc,
`No. 2005-2448, 2007 WL 1695246 (Wis. Ct. App. June 13, 2007) ........................................ 14
`
`Curran v. Bayer Healthcare LLC,
`No. 17-7930, 2018 WL 2431981 (ED. 111. May 30,2018) ............................................. passim
`
`Dwyer Instruments, Inc. v. Wal—Mart.com USA, LLC,
`No.17-636, 2017 WL 6034434 (ND. Ind. Dec. 6, 2017) ........................................................ 19
`
`First Nat'l Bank v. El Camino Resources, Ltd,
`447 F. Supp. 2d 902 (ND. 111. 2006) ................................................................................. 23, 24
`
`Gonzalez v. City of Chicago,
`No. 16-08012, 2018 WL 1561735 (ND. 111. March 30, 2018) ................................................ 17
`
`Grice Eng ’g, Inc. v. JG Innovations, Inc.,
`691 F. Supp. 2d 915 (W.D. Wis. 2010) ................................................................................... 17
`
`Gubala v. HBS Int ’1 Corp. ,
`No. 14—9299, 2016 WL 2344583 (ND. 111. May 4, 2016) ............................................. 9, 10, 11
`
`Hanover Ins. Co. v. N. Bldg. Co.,
`891 F. Supp. 2d 1019 (NB. 111.2012) ............................................................................... 20, 25
`
`Heil Co. v. Curotto Can Co.,
`No. 02-782, 2004 WL 725737 (ND. 111. Mar. 30, 2004) ........................................................ 27
`
`Ibarrola v. Kind, LLC,
`83 F. Supp. 3d 751 (ND. 111.2015) ......................................................................................... 13
`
`In the Matter ofLisse,
`905 F.3d 495 (7th Cir. 2018) ................................................................................................... 25
`
`In re Sears, Roebuck & Co.,
`No. 05-2623, 2006 WL 1443737 (ND. 111. May 17, 2006) ..................................................... 15
`
`#4355084
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-05543 Document #: 21-1 Filed: 11/12/20 Page 7 of 37 PageID #:105
`Case: 1:20-cv-05543 Document #: 21-1 Filed: 11/12/20 Page 7 of 37 PageID #:105
`
`Jaramillo v. DineEquity, Inc.,
`664 F. Supp. 2d 908 (ND. 111. 2009) ....................................................................................... 22
`
`Jasper v. Abbott Labs. Inc,
`834 F. Supp. 2d 766 (ND. 111. 2011) ....................................................................................... 17
`
`Kjaer Weis v. Kimsaprincess Inc.,
`296 F. Supp. 3d 926 (ND. 111. 2017) ........................................................................... 22, 25, 26
`
`Lafleur v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc,
`No. 1211-8473, 2012 WL 2280090 (ND. 111. June 18, 2012) .................................................. 22
`
`Lewis v. Grate Indus, Inc.,
`841 F. Supp. 2d 1049 (ND. 111. 2012) .....................................................................................24
`
`Muir v. NBTY, Inc.,
`No. 15-9835, 2016 WL 5234596 (ND. 111. Sept. 22, 2016) .................................................... 10
`
`Nicks v. Koch Meat Co., Inc,
`
`260 F. Supp. 3d 942 (ND. 111.2017) ....................................................................................... 24
`
`0 ’Connor v. Ford Motor Co. ,
`No. 19—5045, 2020 WL 4569699 (ND. 111. Aug. 7, 2020) ...................................................... 14
`
`Pardini v. Unilever United States, Inc.,
`961 F. Supp. 2d 1048 (ND. Cal. 2013) ..................................................................................... 9
`
`Preston v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc,
`No. 17-3549, 2017 WL 5001447 (ND. 111. Nov. 2, 2017) ...................................................... 23
`
`RAH Color Techs, LLC v. Xerox Corp,
`No. 17-06813, 2018 WL 9539781 (ND. 111. Sept. 24,2018) ............................................ 20, 26
`
`Reid v. Unilever US, Inc.,
`964 F. Supp. 2d 893 (ND. 111. 2013) ................................................................................. 15, 16
`
`Research Automation, Inc. v. Schrader—Bridgeport Int 7, Inc,
`626 F.3d 973 (7th Cir. 2010) ................................................................................................... 20
`
`Reyes v. McDonald’s Corp,
`No. 06-1604, 2006 WL 3253579 (ND. 111. Nov. 8, 2006) ........................................................ 7
`
`Rorah v. Petersen Health Care,
`No. 13-01827, 2013 WL 3389063 (ND. 111. July 8, 2013) ..................................................... 24
`
`Rosen v. Spirit Airlines, Inc.,
`152 F. Supp. 3d 1055 (ND. 111. 2015) ..................................................................................... 24
`
`#4355084
`
`V
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-05543 Document #: 21-1 Filed: 11/12/20 Page 8 of 37 PageID #:106
`Case: 1:20-cv-05543 Document #: 21-1 Filed: 11/12/20 Page 8 of 37 PageID #:106
`
`Schimmer v. Jaguar Cars., Inc,
`383 F.3d 402 (7th Cir. 2004) ................................................................................................... 14
`
`Semitekol v. Monaco Coach Corp,
`582 F. Supp. 2d 1009 (ND. 111. 2008) ..................................................................................... 15
`
`T&M Farms v. CNH Indus. Am, LLC,
`No. 19-0085, 2020 WL 1082768 (E.D. Wis. Mar. 5, 2020) .................................................... 17
`
`Taylor v. Midland Funding, LLC,
`94 F. Supp. 3d 941 (ND. 111. 2015) ......................................................................................... 22
`
`Terrazzino v. Wal—Mart Stores, Inc,
`335 F. Supp. 3d 1074, 1083 (NB. 111.2018) ........................................................................... 17
`
`Turek v. Gen. Mills,
`
`662 F.3d 423 (7th Cir. 2011) ........................................................................................... passim
`
`Ulrich v Probalance, Ina,
`16-10488, 2017 WL 3581183 (ND. 111. Aug. 18, 2017) ......................................................... 10
`
`Van Dusen v. Barrack,
`376 U.S.612 (1964) ................................................................................................................. 19
`
`Wright v. Assoc. Ins. Cas. Inc,
`29 F.3d 1244 (7th Cir. 1994) ..................................................................................................... 5
`
`STATUTES
`
`810 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. § 5/2-607(3)(1) .......................................................................................2
`
`815 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. § 505/10b(1) ..................................................................................... 2, 16
`
`15 U.S.C. § 2301(6) ....................................................................................................................... 15
`
`15 U.S.C. § 2302(e) ....................................................................................................................... 15
`
`21 U.S.C. § 343-1(a) ........................................................................................................................ 6
`
`21 U.S.C. § 343-1(a)(1)-(5) ............................................................................................................. 6
`
`21 U.S.C. § 343(q) ........................................................................................................................... 6
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1391 ............................................................................................................................21
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) ............................................................................................................... passim
`
`Ind. Code § 24-5-0.5-3 ..................................................................... . ............................................... 5
`
`#4355034
`
`Vi
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-05543 Document #: 21-1 Filed: 11/12/20 Page 9 of 37 PageID #:107
`Case: 1:20-cv-05543 Document #: 21-1 Filed: 11/12/20 Page 9 of 37 PageID #:107
`
`Ind. Code § 24-5-0.5-5(a) .......................................................................................................... 2, 17
`
`Ind. Code § 24-5-0.5-6 ...............................................................................................................2, 16
`
`Ind. Code § 26—1-2-607(3)(a) ....................................................................................................... 2, 4
`
`15 U.S.C§2301,etseq. ............................................................................................................ 2,15
`
`Wis. Stat. Ann. §402.607(3)(a) .................................................................................................2, 14
`
`Wis. Stat. Ann. § 100.18 .................................................................................................................. 5
`
`RULES
`
`Rule 201(b) ....................................................................................................................................25
`
`Rule 9(b) .............................................................................................................................. 3, 17, 18
`
`Rule 12(b)(6) ................................................................................................................................ 1,5
`
`Rule 23 ........................................................................................................................................... 26
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`21 C.F.R. § 100.1 ............................................................................................................................. 7
`
`21 C.F.R§ 101.9 .................................................................................................................... passim
`
`21 C.F.R. § 101.12 ................................................................................................................. passim
`
`21 C.F.R. § 101.60 ................................................................................................................... 12,16
`
`21 C.F.R§ 172.320 ........................................................................................................................ 10
`
`21 C.F.R. § 201.327 ....................................................................................................................... 13
`
`81 Fed. Reg. 34000 (May 27, 2016) .............................................................................................. ll
`
`83 Fed. Reg. 19619 (May 4, 2018) .......................................................................................... 11,12
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`U.S. District Courts, Combined Civil and Criminal Federal Court Management Statistics
`(June 30, 2020), https://Www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/federal—court-
`management-statistics-june-2020. ...........................................................................................26
`
`#4355084
`
`V11
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-05543 Document #: 21-1 Filed: 11/12/20 Page 10 of 37 PageID #:108
`Case: 1:20-cv-05543 Document #: 21-1 Filed: 11/12/20 Page 10 of 37 PageID #:108
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`Defendant, Arizona Beverages USA LLC (“ABU”), submits the within memorandum of
`
`law in support of ABU’s motion to dismiss the complaint (“Complaint” or, at times, “Compl.”)
`
`filed by plaintiff, Kenneth Meyers (“Plaintiff”), pursuant to Rule l2(b)(6), for failure to state a
`
`claim. Alternatively, ABU moves to transfer venue of this action to the United States District
`
`Court, for the Eastern District of New York, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). As is set
`
`forth more fully below, just grounds exist to dismiss the Complaint because:
`
`0
`
`Plaintiff’s Claims are Preempted - The gravamen of the Complaint is that ABU
`
`fraudulently labeled the calorie content of its “zero calorie Arnold Palmer drink” (“Arnold
`
`Palmer Beverage”). However, consistent with the holding in Turek v. Gen. Mills, 662 F.3d 423,
`
`426 (7th Cir. 2011), and the express preemption provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and
`
`Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. § 301 , et seq., as amended by the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act
`
`(“NLEA”) (collectively, “FDCA”), Plaintiff s claims are preempted because the labeling at issue
`
`is authorized and/or otherwise permitted under the FDCA.
`
`o
`
`No Plausible Claim for Relief is Pled — The FDA provides five different mechanisms,
`
`connected by the disjunctive “or,” that a food manufacturer may use to calculate the calorie
`
`content of a food item. See 21 CPR. § 101.9(c)(l)(i). Plaintiff does not allege a violation
`
`of that regulation, nor does he state what type of testing methodology was used to assert that
`
`“the zero calorie version of the drink did not have less than five calories.” (Compl, ll 23).
`
`Contrary to Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 US. 544, 555 (2007), Plaintiff fails to set forth
`
`concrete facts to state a claim because no facts are pled to state how, when and why the calorie
`
`content in the Arnold Palmer Beverage was misstated. Given the claim of fraud, Plaintiff must
`
`#4355084
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-05543 Document #: 21-1 Filed: 11/12/20 Page 11 of 37 PageID #:109
`Case: 1:20-cv-05543 Document #: 21-1 Filed: 11/12/20 Page 11 of 37 PageID #:109
`
`allege facts to set forth a plausible basis upon which that claim is being made. See Curran
`
`v. Bayer Healthcare LLC, No. 17-7930, 2018 WL 2431981, *4 (ED. Ill. May 30, 2018).
`
`0
`
`Lack of Pre-Suit Notice Bars Warrant'v Claims — Plaintiff fails to state a claim for
`
`breach of warranty because he does not allege that he provided ABU with notice of breach
`
`before commencing suit.
`
`810 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. § 5/2-607(3)(1); Ind. Code § 26-1-2-
`
`607(3)(a); and Wis. Stat. Ann. § 402.607(3)(a).
`
`o
`
`No Claim for Implied Warranty Exists Under the Magnuson-Moss Warrantv Ac -
`
`Absent an express warranty claim, no claim can be pursued for implied warranty under the
`
`Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C § 2301, et seq. (“Magnuson-Moss”). Regardless, the
`
`statement “zero calories” is not a “written warranty” under Magnuson-Moss. Plaintiffs claim
`
`also does not satisfy the monetary threshold necessary to state a claim.
`
`0
`
`The Safe Harbor Provisions in the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Decegtive Practices
`
`Act g“ICFA”1 and the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act [“IDCSA”! Bar Those
`
`Causes of Action — Both the ICFA and IDCSA preclude claims for conduct expressly permitted
`
`and/or authorized under federal law. 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. § 505/10b(1); Ind. Code § 24-5-
`
`O.5-6. Because the label statements concerning serving size and calorie content are required
`
`under 21 C.F.R. § 101.12 and 21 CPR. § 101.9(c), those safe harbor provisions apply.
`
`0
`
`Lack of Pre-Suit Notice Dooms the IDCSA Claims - Prior to filing suit under the
`
`IDCSA, pre-suit notice is required.
`
`Ind. Code § 24-5-0.5-5(a). Plaintiff does not allege that he
`
`provided such notice.
`
`0
`
`Failure to Plead Fraud With Particularih' - Plaintiff fails to describe the who, what,
`
`when, where, and how regarding the improper false statement of caloric content. Plaintiff also
`
`does not identify any FDCA provision allegedly violated and provides no aSsertions about any
`
`#4355084
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-05543 Document #: 21-1 Filed: 11/12/20 Page 12 of 37 PageID #:110
`Case: 1:20-cv-05543 Document #: 21-1 Filed: 11/12/20 Page 12 of 37 PageID #:110
`
`test results. Further, Plaintiff does not state the purchase price he paid for the Arnold Palmer
`
`Beverage. Consistent with Rule 9(b), more particularity is required to provide ABU with fair
`
`notice of the factual grounds asserted for fraud.
`
`0
`
`Plaintiff Does Not State a Claim. for Common Law Fraud — Illinois, Indiana and
`
`Wisconsin require Plaintiff to plead knowledge of falsity with regard to the alleged
`
`misrepresentation. Beaton v. SpeedyPC Software, No. 13-08389, 2014 WL 4376219, *3 (ND.
`
`111. Sept. 2, 2014); Boulet v. National Presto Industries, Inc, No. 11-840, 2012 WL 12996297,
`
`*5 (W.D. Wis. May 7, 2012); Comfax Corp. v. N. Am. Van Lines, Inc, 587 N.E.2d 118, 125 (Ind.
`
`Ct. App. 1992). No such allegations are pled.
`
`Alternatively, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), just grounds exist to transfer this action to
`
`the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. ABU is a citizen of New
`
`York and Plaintiff is a citizen of Michigan. Plaintiff does not allege that he interacted with ABU
`
`in Illinois or that he ever bought the Arnold Palmer Beverage directly from ABU. ABU’s
`
`headquarters are in Woodbury, New York. ABU’s employees, with knowledge of the labeling and
`
`sale of the Arnold Palmer Beverage, are located in New York. None of the co-packers, who make
`
`ABU’s beverages, are located in Illinois. Transfer of venue is warranted for the convenience of
`
`the parties, and witnesses, and to promote the interest ofjustice.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS GERMANE TO MOTION
`
`I.
`
`Allegations Cencerniny Venue
`
`Plaintiff alleges that “[v]enue and personal jurisdiction are proper because Plaintiff
`
`purchased Defendant’s mislabeled product in Chicago, Illinois.” (Compl., ll 3). Plaintiff asserts
`
`that he is a citizen of Michigan, a resident of Lawrence, Michigan and that he formerly resided in
`
`Illinois.
`
`(Id., 1] 4).
`
`#4355084
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-05543 Document #: 21-1 Filed: 11/12/20 Page 13 of 37 PageID #:111
`Case: 1:20-cv-05543 Document #: 21-1 Filed: 11/12/20 Page 13 of 37 PageID #:111
`
`Regarding ABU, Plaintiff alleges that it is a limited liability company, organized under
`
`the laws of New York, is a citizen of New York, and has its principal offices at 60 Crossways
`
`Park Drive West, Woodbury, New York 11797.
`
`(1d,, 1111 5 and 7). He also asserts that ABU does
`
`business in Illinois. (Id., 11 5).
`
`II.
`
`Assertions About Purchases
`
`Plaintiff claims to have purchased the Arnold Palmer Beverage: (1) “at the Walgreens at
`
`189 N. Northwest Hwy, Barrington, IL 60010 on September 20, 2019; the Shell gas station at
`
`106 N. Northwest Highway, Barrington, IL 60010 on April 8, 2019, and April 9, 2019, and the
`
`Shell gas station at 100 W. Northwest Hwy, Barrington, IL 60010 on July 13, 2019” (Compl., 11
`
`13); (2) “at the BP gas station at 112 S. Main Street, Walworth, WI 53184, on June 14, 2019,
`
`June 15, 2019, and September 22, 2019” (Id.,
`
`11 14); (3) “at the Walgreens at 580 Indian
`
`Boundary Rd., Chesterton, IN 46304, on July 12, 2019; and the BP gas station at 525 Indian
`
`Boundary Rd., Chesterton, IN 46304, on April 10, 2019, April 22, 2019, July 12, 2019, and
`
`September 23, 2019” (141., 11 15); and (4) “at the Shell gas station at 7000 Westnedge, Portage, MI
`
`49002” (161., 11 16).
`
`III.
`
`Claims of Mislabelinn
`
`Plaintiff claims the Arnold Palmer Beverage “did not qualify for labeling” as “zero
`
`calorie” and was renamed “diet.” (Id., 11 20). He attaches, as an exhibit to the Complaint, labels
`
`of two 23 ounce cans of the Arnold Palmer Beverage, one labeled as “zero calorie” and the other
`
`labeled “diet” (Id.,
`
`11 21). According to Plaintiff, “[u]nder Food & Drug Administration
`
`regulations, a product cannot be labeled or represented as having zero calories unless a standard
`
`serving has no more than five calories.” (Id., 11 22). He alleges that “the zero calorie version of
`
`the drink did not have less than five calories.” (Id., 11 23). The sole basis pled for this claim is
`
`#4355084
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-05543 Document #: 21-1 Filed: 11/12/20 Page 14 of 37 PageID #:112
`Case: 1:20-cv-05543 Document #: 21-1 Filed: 11/12/20 Page 14 of 37 PageID #:112
`
`the assertion that “[r]ecently, the Food & Drug Administration required AriZona to relabel the
`
`‘zero calorie’ product as a ‘diet’ product with 15 calories per can.” (161., ‘ll 24).
`
`The Complaint contains seven causes of action for: (1) breach of express warranty under
`
`the Uniform Commercial Code (“U.C.C.”), § 2-313; (2) breach of implied warranty; UCC and
`
`Magnusson-Moss; (3) consumer fraud under the ICFA; (4) consumer fraud under Wis. Stat. §
`
`100.18; (5) consumer fraud under Ind. Code § 24-5-0.5-3; (6) common law fraud; and (7) unjust
`
`enrichment.
`
`(Compl., 1111 28-111). Plaintiff seeks nationwide class certification for the breach of
`
`warranty, common law fraud and unjust enrichment claims.
`
`(161., W 34, 46, 92 and 105). The
`
`class allegations for consumer fraud are limited to persons who purchased the Arnold Palmer
`
`Beverage in Illinois, Wisconsin and/or Indiana. (Id., 111] 59, 70 and 82).
`
`LEGAL ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`The Complaint Fails to State Any Claim
`
`The Complaint must be dismissed if it fails to allege facts that, if true, would “state a
`
`claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting
`
`Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported
`
`by mere conelusory statements, do not suffice.” Ibid. Unless Plaintiff has pled concrete facts
`
`that, if true, would “nudge[] the[] claims across the line from conceivable to plausible,” the Court
`
`should dismiss this case. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
`
`“It is well settled that
`
`in deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court may consider
`
`‘documents attached to a motion to dismiss .
`
`.
`
`. if they are referred to in the plaintiff’s complaint
`
`and are central to his claim.” Brownmark Films, LLC v. Comedy Partners, 682 F.3d 687, 690
`
`(7th Cir. 2012) (quoting Wright v. Assoc. Ins. Cas. Inc, 29 F.3d 1244, 1248 (7th Cir. 1994)).
`
`The photographs of the cans, attached to the Complaint, do not include the entire contents of
`
`#4355084
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-05543 Document #: 21-1 Filed: 11/12/20 Page 15 of 37 PageID #:113
`Case: 1:20-cv-05543 Document #: 21-1 Filed: 11/12/20 Page 15 of 37 PageID #:113
`
`each label.
`
`(Compl., Ex. A). Accompanying this motion are copies of the complete Arnold
`
`Palmer Beverage labels referenced in the complaint.
`
`(Declaration of Don Vultaggio, “Vultaggio
`
`Dec.,” Exs. A and B).
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiff’s Claims Are Expressly Preempted Because the Complaint Does Not
`State a Claim of a FDCA Violation Based Upon the Applicable Testing
`Standard to Determine Calorie Content.
`
`The FDCA, as amended by the NLEA, establishes a comprehensive, national scheme of
`
`regulation for labeling food and dietary supplements. Turek, Inc, 662 F.3d at 426. To prevent
`
`states from interfering with uniform national labeling, the FDCA bars them from “directly or
`
`indirectly” imposing “any requirement for nutrition labeling of food that is not identical” to
`
`requirements set out in federal statutes or regulations. 21 U.S.C. § 343—1(a)(1)—(5); Turek, 662
`
`F .3d at 426-27. The text of the applicable preemption provision, at 21 U.S.C. § 343-1(a)
`
`provides, in pertinent part:
`
`Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, no State or
`political
`subdivision of a State may directly or
`indirectly
`establish under any authority or continue in effect as to any food
`in interstate commerce—
`
`***
`
`(4) any requirement for nutrition labeling of food that is not
`identical to the requirement of section 343(q) of this title. .
`.
`
`21 U.S.C. § 343(q) governs the disclosure of nutrition information on a product label,
`
`including calorie content. 21 U.S.C. § 343(q)(1)(C). A food label must provide “the serving
`
`size which is an amount customarily consumed and which is expressed in a common household
`
`measure that is appropriate to the food[.]”
`
`21 U.S.C. § 343(q)(l)(A)(i); see 21 C.F.R.
`
`§
`
`101.9(b)(1);
`
`see also 21 C.F.R.
`
`§ 101.12(b)
`
`(defining “reference amounts customarily
`
`consumed” or “‘RACC”). Taken together, this statutory structure expressly preempts any state
`
`law claim that would have the effect of creating a non-identical requirement.
`
`#4355084
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-05543 Document #: 21-1 Filed: 11/12/20 Page 16 of 37 PageID #:114
`Case: 1:20-cv-05543 Document #: 21-1 Filed: 11/12/20 Page 16 of 37 PageID #:114
`
`A state requirement is “not identical” if it: (a) is “not imposed by” federal law or (b)
`
`differs from the requirements “specifically imposed by” federal law. 21 C.F.R. § 100.1(c)(4).
`
`“It is easy to s