Sinatro v. Barilla America, Inc.

Background

Matthew Sinatro and Jessica Prost brought a putative class action against Barilla America, Inc. They alleged that Barilla’s packaging falsely or misleadingly suggested that certain Barilla-brand pastas were made in Italy from ingredients sourced in Italy. They asserted five state-law claims involving products displaying the statement “Italy’s #1 Brand of Pasta,” shown between the green, white, and red colors of Italy’s flag.

On May 28, 2024, the court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). The certified class covered California residents who, during the four years before the complaint was filed, purchased the covered products for purposes other than resale.

Barilla’s Motion

Barilla sought leave under Civil Local Rule 7-9 to file a motion for reconsideration of the class-certification order. That rule requires a party to show reasonable diligence and one of three circumstances: a material difference in facts or law that could not previously have been known through reasonable diligence; newly emerged material facts or a change in law; or a manifest failure by the court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments that had previously been presented. The rule also prohibits using reconsideration to reargue prior arguments.

Barilla argued that the court had failed to consider the significance of McGinity v. Procter & Gamble Co. for whether Plaintiffs could rely on a presumption of class-wide reliance. Barilla contended that Plaintiffs’ survey showed, at most, that the front-label statement was ambiguous and that consumers might therefore need to consider other information on the packaging.

Court’s Analysis

The court first held that Barilla’s motion largely rehashed arguments about the sufficiency of Plaintiffs’ class-certification evidence, contrary to Local Rule 7-9(c). The court stated that this alone supported denial of the motion.

The court also rejected Barilla’s argument on the merits of the request for reconsideration. In the original class-certification briefing, Barilla had referred to McGinity only in a footnote, asserting that unspecified evidence showed the statement was ambiguous. Barilla had not meaningfully analyzed the decision or explained how it applied to the requirements for class certification. The court stated that it was not required to analyze arguments that a party had failed to develop.

The court explained that Barilla’s motion improperly attempted to present arguments that Barilla should have made in its original opposition to class certification. It also noted that McGinity addressed a motion to dismiss rather than class certification. The court therefore found that Barilla had not shown a manifest failure to consider dispositive legal arguments previously presented to the court.

Disposition

The court denied Barilla’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the May 28, 2024 class-certification order.