Castillo v. Prime Hydration LLC

Background

Elizabeth Castillo alleged that a Prime Hydration sports drink contained PFAS and was unsafe for consumption. She asserted breach of implied warranty of merchantability under both the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and California Commercial Code § 2314(1). An implied warranty of merchantability generally requires goods to meet a minimum level of quality and be fit for their ordinary purpose.

Prime Hydration moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). The court described that procedure as allowing judgment when the pleadings show no disputed material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court applies the same standard used for a motion to dismiss, accepting the complaint’s factual allegations as true and viewing the pleadings favorably to the nonmoving party.

Song-Beverly claim

Prime Hydration argued that Castillo’s Song-Beverly implied-warranty claim failed as a matter of law because the statute does not apply to consumable products. The court granted Prime Hydration’s motion as to that claim.

California Commercial Code claim

Castillo alleged that PFAS made the drink unsafe and unfit for consumption. The court had previously found those allegations sufficient at the pleading stage, including allegations that PFAS are poisonous or harmful and that even low levels may pose health risks.

Prime Hydration relied on an Environmental Protection Agency regulation issued April 26, 2024, and related EPA website material. The regulation set maximum contaminant levels for two types of PFAS, PFOA and PFOS, at 4.0 parts per trillion in drinking water. The court granted Prime Hydration’s request for judicial notice, meaning it accepted the existence and appropriate contents of the public EPA records for purposes permitted by the evidence rules. The court did not treat the records as conclusively proving that the sports drink was safe.

The court held that the EPA materials did not resolve, as a matter of law, whether the amount of PFAS in the product was sufficiently safe for consumers or whether the product would pass without objection in the trade. Castillo’s claim was not based only on whether PFAS levels exceeded the EPA’s interim drinking-water advisories; she also alleged that no amount of PFAS was safe and cited other sources concerning PFAS health risks.

The court emphasized that its ruling did not find that the product contained unsafe PFAS levels or that Prime Hydration breached the implied warranty. Instead, it held that the disputed extent of the product’s health risks was a factual issue that could not be decided on the pleadings. The court therefore denied Prime Hydration’s motion as to Castillo’s California Commercial Code § 2314 claim.

Disposition

Prime Hydration’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted in part and denied in part: it was granted as to Castillo’s Song-Beverly claim and denied as to her California Commercial Code claim. The court set a case-management conference for October 9, 2025, and required the parties to file a joint case-management statement by noon on September 26, 2025.