Sullivan v. Built Brands LLC

Background

Sean Sullivan brought a proposed class action against Built Brands LLC concerning Built Protein Bars and Puffs. He alleged that Built labeled the products as containing 15 to 19 grams of protein per serving even though third-party laboratory testing allegedly showed lower amounts. Sullivan asserted claims under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, for unjust enrichment, and for breach of express warranty.

Motion and Arguments

Built moved to dismiss. The issue addressed in this order was whether Sullivan could seek equitable relief—relief based on fairness, including restitution or disgorgement—without alleging that he lacked an adequate remedy through ordinary legal relief. Built relied on a Ninth Circuit decision stating that courts must apply traditional equitable principles before awarding restitution under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

Sullivan argued that he pleaded entitlement to equitable relief in the alternative and that courts in the Northern District of California generally allow plaintiffs to pursue alternative remedies at the pleading stage.

Court’s Analysis

The court agreed that the cited Ninth Circuit decision requires consideration of traditional equitable principles before awarding restitution, but explained that most courts in the district interpret that decision as imposing a less demanding requirement at the pleading stage. In the court’s view, Sullivan still had to allege that he lacked an adequate legal remedy.

Sullivan alleged that he was entitled to disgorgement of Built’s ill-gotten gains and restitution of Built’s wrongful profits, revenue, and benefits from product sales. The court found that he did not allege that he lacked an adequate legal remedy.

Ruling

The court granted Built Brands LLC’s motion to dismiss in part. It dismissed Sullivan’s claims for equitable relief with leave to amend. Sullivan was permitted to file an amended complaint within 21 days, solely to correct the deficiencies identified in the order. The opinion does not specify which individual causes of action contain the dismissed equitable-relief requests. A footnote also states that Built no longer challenged the complaint on preemption grounds in light of a recent Ninth Circuit decision.