Clark v. Nordic Naturals, Inc.

Background

Dayna Clark brought a false-advertising action based on her purchase of Nordic Naturals’ omega-3 fish-oil supplements. She alleged that the products’ labels made “heart health” claims that were false and misleading because the supplements may harm heart health, including by increasing the risk of atrial fibrillation. The opinion states that Clark also alleged the products had no effect on heart health, but the court found that her harmful-to-heart-health theory was adequately pleaded.

Requests to Consider Documents

Both sides asked the court to consider documents outside the complaint. The court granted and denied both requests in part. It considered Nordic Naturals’ Exhibits 1 through 7 because the complaint incorporated them by reference. It took judicial notice of Exhibits 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13 as public records, but not of disputed facts within those documents. It did not consider Exhibit 10 because it was an unsigned, undated letter sent to an organization that was not a party. The court considered Clark’s Exhibits 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 because they were incorporated by reference, but did not consider Exhibits 3, 8, and 9.

Federal Preemption

Nordic Naturals argued that the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act preempted all of Clark’s claims because the “heart health” statements were dietary-supplement “structure or function” claims permitted by that law. The court rejected the preemption argument. It explained that state-law claims challenging a structure or function claim may proceed when the plaintiff plausibly alleges that the claim is false or misleading and matches the evidence to the claim being challenged. At the pleading stage, the court found sufficient Clark’s reliance on a peer-reviewed study involving more than 400,000 participants and follow-up lasting up to 15 years in some cases. Although the study did not track participants’ dosages, the court held that it was sufficient at this stage to support the allegation that regular fish-oil use might increase the risk of atrial fibrillation and stroke.

Rulings on the Claims

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which requires dismissal when a complaint does not plausibly state a claim for relief, and Rule 12(b)(1), which concerns subject-matter jurisdiction and standing.

- Count 1: The court granted the motion to dismiss the claims under Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Missouri, and New York consumer-protection laws, with leave to amend. Clark alleged that she was a California resident but did not allege that she purchased the products or was harmed in any of those other states. The complaint also did not identify class representatives from those states. - Count 2: The court denied the motion to dismiss the California False Advertising Law claim because Clark plausibly alleged that the product labels were false and misleading. - Count 3: The court granted the motion to dismiss the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act claim, with leave to amend. The court held that Clark had not plausibly alleged standing for any relief available under that law. In particular, she did not show a substantial risk of future injury for injunctive relief because she alleged that the product was harmful and therefore was not likely to buy it again. The court also found that, as pleaded, she had not brought a claim for monetary damages because she did not amend her complaint after the 30-day period following her demand letter. - Count 4: The court denied the motion to dismiss the California Unfair Competition Law claim because the plausible false-label allegations also supported that claim. - Count 5: The court denied the motion to dismiss the express-warranty claim. - Count 6: The court denied the motion to dismiss the quasi-contract claim. The court held that Clark could plead an express-warranty claim and a quasi-contract claim alternatively at the pleading stage. Her allegation that the misleading representations caused her and the proposed class to purchase worthless products, giving Nordic Naturals an unjust benefit at her expense, was sufficient at that stage. - Count 7: The court denied the motion to dismiss the negligent-misrepresentation claim. It held that the alleged false “heart health” statement was sufficient for this claim, even though an omission alone cannot support negligent-misrepresentation liability. - Count 8: The court denied the motion to dismiss the intentional-misrepresentation and omission claim. It held that Clark adequately alleged the required elements, including knowledge under the heightened pleading rules for fraud.

Disposition

The court granted Nordic Naturals’ motion to dismiss as to Counts 1 and 3 and denied it as to Counts 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. The court allowed Clark to file an amended complaint within 14 days of the order. The opinion does not state that the dismissals were with or without prejudice.

Classification

This is a procedural order because it resolves a motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1), which address whether claims are adequately pleaded and whether the plaintiff has standing, rather than finally deciding liability.