LeGrand v. Abbott Laboratories

Background

Abbott manufactures and sells Ensure nutrition shakes and drinks. LeGrand alleges that Abbott’s health and nutrition statements about those products are false or misleading because the products contain added sugar. Her lawsuit asserts claims under California consumer-protection and warranty laws, along with other claims, and seeks to proceed as a class action.

LeGrand asked to file a second amended complaint adding Ensure Plus Nutrition Shake to the challenged products. She proposed adding two paragraphs about Ensure Plus. She said she had previously understood that Ensure Plus was marketed specifically for weight gain, but learned new information at the August 9, 2024 deposition of Abbott’s former marketing director. According to the opinion, the witness testified that healthcare providers could recommend Ensure Plus to patients seeking to lose weight.

Legal Standard

Because the request came after the deadline in the scheduling order, the court first applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b). That rule required LeGrand to show “good cause,” which generally focuses on whether she acted diligently. The court then applied Rule 15, which generally directs courts to allow amendments freely when justice requires. The Rule 15 factors include bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, whether the amendment would be legally futile, and whether the plaintiff had already amended the complaint.

Court’s Analysis

The court found good cause under Rule 16. Although some information about Ensure Plus had been available earlier, the deposition testimony provided a new basis for adding Ensure Plus to the case. The court also found that LeGrand acted diligently after the deposition: her counsel took the deposition on August 9, received the transcript on August 21, sought Abbott’s consent on September 24, and filed the motion after Abbott declined to consent.

The court found no bad faith or improper motive. It also found that the delay was not undue because LeGrand had acted reasonably after learning the new information.

On prejudice, the court rejected Abbott’s argument that adding Ensure Plus would greatly change the case or require an entirely new defense. The court noted that discovery remained open and that the proposed amendment mainly added one product and two related paragraphs. The court acknowledged that Abbott might need additional discovery, but found that this did not amount to substantial prejudice.

The court did find that relitigating a challenge to the statement “All-in-One blend to support your health” would cause Abbott undue prejudice because that challenge had previously been dismissed without leave to amend. LeGrand said the statement’s inclusion in the proposed complaint was inadvertent and agreed to remove it.

The court found the amendment was not futile, meaning it was not legally insufficient on its face. Abbott did not otherwise argue that the amendment would be futile. The court also considered that LeGrand had amended her complaint once before but found that this fact did not outweigh the factors supporting amendment.

Disposition

The court GRANTS the motion to amend. LeGrand must remove any challenge to the statement “All-in-One blend to support your health” and must file the second amended complaint as a separate docket entry by December 10, 2024. This order addresses whether LeGrand may amend her pleading; it does not decide the underlying consumer-protection or warranty claims.