Sullivan v. Built Brands LLC
- Jon Tigar
- 4:24-cv-04565
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate and have been consolidated across spelling variants.
In Sullivan v. Built Brands LLC, Judge Tigar denied Built Brands' motion to dismiss Sullivan's equitable claims, finding he adequately alleged the lack of an adequate legal remedy.
Consumers who purchased Built Protein Bars or Built Puffs and believe the protein content was overstated on the label may be affected if this case proceeds as a class action. Companies that sell consumer products with protein or nutritional content claims in California may also be affected by the court's interpretation of when equitable claims can be pleaded alongside legal damages claims.
What happened
Sean Sullivan filed a putative class action against Built Brands LLC in Sullivan v. Built Brands LLC (No. 24-cv-04565-JST), alleging that Built Brands' product labels for Built Protein Bars and Built Puffs falsely overstate their protein content, claiming 15–19 grams of protein per serving when the actual amount is less. Sullivan asserts claims under California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, unjust enrichment, and breach of express warranty. After an earlier ruling dismissed his equitable claims with leave to amend, Sullivan filed a first amended complaint adding allegations that he lacks an adequate legal remedy.
Built Brands moved to dismiss the equitable claims in the amended complaint, arguing that under the Ninth Circuit's Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp. decision, Sullivan could not pursue equitable relief because the same full-refund remedy was available under both his legal and equitable theories. Built Brands contended that Sullivan's allegations were merely formulaic legal conclusions insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. Sullivan countered that he adequately pleaded the inadequacy of legal remedies by alleging that proving damages would require an additional showing—such as demonstrating that the products had no market value—that equitable restitution would not require.
Judge Tigar denied Built Brands' motion to dismiss. The court held that Sonner requires far less at the pleading stage than Built Brands argued, consistent with the majority of courts in the Northern District of California. The court found Sullivan's allegations—that equitable restitution would be more certain and would not require the additional showing of lost market value needed for legal damages—sufficient to plead the inadequacy of a legal remedy at this early stage. A case management conference was scheduled for September 22, 2026.
The detailed version
- Sullivan v. Built Brands LLC · No. 4:24-cv-04565
- Jon Tigar
- Aug. 24, 2026
Background
Plaintiff Sean Sullivan brought a putative class action (a lawsuit filed on behalf of the plaintiff and similarly situated people) against Defendant Built Brands LLC, alleging that Built Brands mislabeled its Built Protein Bars and Built Puffs by claiming they contain 15–19 grams of protein per serving when they allegedly contain less. Sullivan asserted three claims: (1) violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et seq., which prohibits deceptive business practices; (2) unjust enrichment; and (3) breach of express warranty. Sullivan invoked federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), the Class Action Fairness Act.
In a prior order addressing an earlier motion to dismiss, the court dismissed Sullivan's equitable relief claims with leave to amend because he had not alleged that he lacked an adequate legal remedy — a prerequisite for equitable relief. Sullivan filed a first amended complaint on October 23, 2025. Built Brands moved to dismiss the equitable claims in that amended complaint on November 5, 2025. Sullivan opposed the motion on November 19, 2025, and Built Brands replied. The court decided the motion without oral argument.
The Parties' Arguments
Built Brands' position
Built Brands argued that Sullivan once again failed to adequately plead the absence of an adequate legal remedy, as required by the Ninth Circuit's decision in Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 971 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2020). Built Brands contended that because Sullivan conceded the same remedy — a full refund — was available under both his legal and equitable theories, equitable relief was unavailable. Built Brands also cited Gradney v. Polar Beverages for the proposition that when the scope of legal damages does not materially differ from equitable relief sought, equitable claims must be dismissed. Built Brands further argued that Sullivan's allegations were merely formulaic recitations of legal elements, not adequate factual allegations.
Sullivan's position
Sullivan argued in his amended complaint that he lacked an adequate legal remedy for three reasons: (1) he faces an actual and imminent threat of future harm that monetary damages cannot cure; (2) he seeks equitable restitution in the alternative to damages; and (3) obtaining damages under his legal claims requires additional showings — such as proving that the products had no market value — that equitable restitution would not require.
Legal Standard
To survive a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The court must accept all factual allegations as true and construe the pleadings in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Mere conclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences need not be accepted.
Analysis and Ruling
The court denied Built Brands' motion to dismiss.
Sonner's Requirements at the Pleading Stage
In Sonner, the Ninth Circuit held that a federal court must apply traditional equitable principles before awarding restitution under California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and CLRA, including requiring plaintiffs to demonstrate the inadequacy of legal remedies. However, the court noted that it and the majority of courts in the Northern District of California understand Sonner to require far less at the pleading stage than Built Brands argued. The court cited numerous decisions from within the district supporting this interpretation, including cases holding that: Sonner does not address what a plaintiff must allege at the pleading stage; pleading equitable restitution in the alternative is not improper; and alleging that legal remedies are not as certain as equitable remedies is sufficient at this stage.
Adequacy of Sullivan's Allegations
The court found that Sullivan's amended complaint adequately pleaded the absence of an adequate legal remedy. Sullivan specifically alleged that proving damages would require a showing that the products he purchased had no market value — an element not required under his equitable restitution theory. The court held this allegation was not merely a formulaic legal conclusion but a factual basis for distinguishing the two remedies. The court cited Murphy v. Olly Public Benefit Corp. and Anderson v. Apple Inc. as examples of cases where courts found similar allegations — that equitable relief would be more certain or would require fewer additional showings — sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.
Disposition
The court denied Built Brands' motion to dismiss. The court scheduled a case management conference for September 22, 2026, with a joint case management statement due September 15, 2026.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.