LeGrand v. Abbott Laboratories

Background

Condalisa LeGrand brought a proposed class action against Abbott Laboratories concerning statements on the labels of Abbott’s Ensure nutrition drinks. Her Second Amended Complaint asserted claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act; claims for breach of express and implied warranties; and claims for unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and intentional misrepresentation. She sought damages and injunctive relief, meaning a court order addressing future conduct.

LeGrand proposed a California class of people who purchased Ensure Original Nutrition Shake, Ensure Plus Nutrition Shake, or Ensure Complete Nutrition Shake from October 6, 2018, until the class was notified. Her motion for class certification was pending. LeGrand testified that she had bought Ensure products repeatedly, including during the proposed class period, and had relied on label statements such as “#1 Doctor Recommended” and “Complete, Balanced Nutrition.” She said that she later learned about the products’ added sugar and stopped consuming nutritional shakes. After that, she testified, she bought Ensure for her then husband using his money, but did not buy it for herself.

Abbott’s Motion

Abbott moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), which requires dismissal if the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Abbott argued that LeGrand lacked Article III standing, the constitutional requirement that a plaintiff show a concrete injury caused by the defendant and likely to be addressed by a favorable decision. Abbott contended that LeGrand had no reliable proof that she bought Ensure products, pointing to the absence of Ensure receipts, receipts showing purchases of Equate products, and what Abbott described as changing testimony about her purchases.

Abbott separately argued that LeGrand lacked standing to seek injunctive relief because she knew about the alleged labeling problems and therefore faced no real and immediate risk of future harm. Abbott also argued that LeGrand could not reasonably be deceived by the labeling again.

Standing for LeGrand’s Claims

The court treated Abbott’s challenge as a factual jurisdictional challenge and reviewed evidence beyond the complaint. It held that LeGrand proved by a preponderance of the evidence that she purchased the challenged Ensure products during the proposed class period. The court relied on her testimony and declaration, which described her repeated purchases, the stores and methods involved, her reliance on the labeling, and her practice of discarding receipts.

The court rejected Abbott’s argument that the lack of receipts established that no Ensure purchases occurred. The receipts Abbott presented concerned purchases at one Walmart location during part of the proposed class period and showed Equate purchases, but they did not establish that LeGrand never bought Ensure. The court also noted that LeGrand testified about cash purchases and purchases at other stores that would not necessarily appear in the receipts Abbott offered. The court found that receipts were not a prerequisite to standing and that Abbott had not offered affirmative evidence disproving LeGrand’s claimed purchases.

The court therefore held that LeGrand established an injury sufficient for Article III standing and denied Abbott’s motion to dismiss for lack of Article III standing.

Standing for Injunctive Relief

The court explained that standing must be shown separately for each form of relief. For injunctive relief, a plaintiff must show an actual and imminent threat of future injury. In a consumer case involving allegedly false advertising or labeling, a previously deceived consumer may meet that requirement by showing that she wants to buy the product but cannot rely on its labeling, or that she might buy it again while reasonably assuming that the product or labeling had improved.

The court found that LeGrand met this standard. It credited her testimony that she stopped consuming Ensure after learning that it was not healthy, that her later purchases were for her then husband using his money, and that Abbott had not shown she bought the products for herself after learning about the alleged harm. The court concluded that she wanted to purchase Ensure but could not rely on its labeling, creating a sufficient threat of future harm.

The court also rejected Abbott’s argument that LeGrand could not be deceived again. The court found that LeGrand’s testimony showed she did not understand how to evaluate the added-sugar information on the nutrition panel or reconcile it with the other labeling. It therefore concluded that she could reasonably be deceived by Ensure’s labeling in the future.

Disposition and Effect

Judge Thomas S. Hixson denied Abbott’s motion to dismiss LeGrand’s claims for injunctive relief and denied Abbott’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(h)(3). The order resolved only Abbott’s jurisdictional challenge. It did not decide whether Abbott’s labeling was false or misleading, whether LeGrand’s claims would succeed, or whether the proposed class should be certified.