Kouyate v. Bai Brands, LLC

Background

Moussa Kouyate sued Bai Brands, LLC, concerning Bai’s “No Artificial Sweeteners” labeling claim. The complaint alleged that Kouyate regularly purchased Bai beverages, relied on the labeling claim, and would not have bought the products—or would not have paid the same price—if he had known the claim was false or misleading.

Bai Brands moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that Kouyate lacked Article III standing. Standing is the requirement that a plaintiff show a legally sufficient injury connected to the defendant’s conduct. Bai argued that Kouyate could not prove that he purchased a Bai product or establish a specific price-premium injury. Shortly afterward, Kouyate moved for leave to amend his complaint to substitute Lana Zinger as the named plaintiff because he did not want his face and voice recorded during his deposition, which he understood to be required to continue the case.

Standing ruling

The court treated Bai’s standing challenge as a fact-based jurisdictional challenge. Because Kouyate’s complaint plausibly alleged that he purchased Bai products and paid a price premium based on the labeling claim, Bai had to present evidence contradicting those allegations before Kouyate had to provide additional evidence.

The court held that Bai’s evidence did not contradict the complaint. Kouyate’s inability to identify the price he paid at a particular store on a particular date, and his lack of purchase records, did not establish that he had not made the purchases. The court noted that the evidence might create difficulty for Kouyate later in proving his case, but it was insufficient at the motion-to-dismiss stage. The court therefore denied Bai’s motion to dismiss.

Amendment ruling

The court held that Bai’s jurisdiction-based objections to the proposed amendment were moot because the court had denied the Rule 12(b)(1) motion. Applying the standards governing amendments to pleadings and scheduling orders, the court found good cause to allow the amendment because Kouyate’s attorneys learned in mid-January that he was unwilling to be recorded during his deposition and promptly notified Bai and began discussing possible solutions.

The court found no sufficient reason to deny amendment based on futility, bad faith, undue delay, or undue prejudice. It concluded that the amendment would not substantially affect the case schedule, particularly because the court had extended the deadlines, and noted that Bai could request additional extensions if compelling reasons existed. The court granted Kouyate’s motion for leave to amend. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motions at Dockets 34 and 42.

Disposition

Bai Brands’ motion to dismiss was DENIED. Kouyate’s motion for leave to amend was GRANTED. The opinion did not decide whether Bai’s labeling claim ultimately succeeds; it decided only the standing challenge and the requested amendment.