Hernandez v. The Wonderful Company LLC

Background

Bertha Hernandez and Wayne Catalano filed a proposed class action against The Wonderful Company LLC and its wholly owned subsidiary, POM Wonderful LLC. They alleged that POM 100% Pomegranate Juice was labeled and marketed as “All Natural,” “100% Pomegranate Juice,” and an “Antioxidant Superpower,” but contained per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), including PFOA. They alleged that testing of purchased products detected PFAS and that they would not have bought the product, or would have paid less for it, if they had known about the alleged PFAS.

The Second Amended Complaint asserted four claims: violations of New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, negligence per se based on alleged violations of the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and New York Agriculture and Markets Law § 199-a, and unjust enrichment. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim based on its allegations.

Court’s Analysis

The court granted the defendants’ request for judicial notice of six government and other webpages for the limited purpose of recognizing that agencies had issued guidance about PFAS. It did not accept the information in those documents as true.

The court held that The Wonderful Company was not a proper defendant on the allegations pleaded. Although the complaint alleged that the parent company provided marketing resources, created a uniform advertising message, and reviewed production processes, it did not allege that The Wonderful Company controlled the decision to label the product “All Natural” or to omit PFAS from the label. The court therefore dismissed The Wonderful Company.

The court allowed the New York deceptive-practices claims against POM to proceed. It concluded that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that a reasonable consumer could be misled by “All Natural” and related health representations if the product contained PFAS. The court distinguished cases involving other contaminants, reasoning that the complaint alleged serious health concerns associated with PFAS. The court also concluded that the allegations were sufficient under the plaintiffs’ theory that POM knew PFAS were present and did not disclose them.

The court also allowed the negligence per se claim to proceed. It found that the plaintiffs adequately alleged that PFAS might render the product harmful to health, supporting their adulteration theory. It further found that factual questions remained about whether PFAS were intentionally or incidentally present, whether the levels were significant, and whether the product was misbranded. Those questions could not be resolved on a motion to dismiss.

The court dismissed the unjust-enrichment claim because it relied on the same alleged price-premium and benefit-of-the-bargain injuries as the New York deceptive-practices claims. Under the cited New York law, an unjust-enrichment claim cannot simply duplicate another legal claim.

Disposition

Judge Edgardo Ramos granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 claims and the negligence per se claim were not dismissed. The unjust-enrichment claim was dismissed, and The Wonderful Company was dismissed as a defendant. The opinion did not determine whether the product actually contained PFAS at harmful or legally significant levels; it ruled on whether the pleaded allegations were sufficient to continue the case at the motion-to-dismiss stage. The parties were directed to appear for a telephonic conference on December 12, 2024.