Tabler v. Panera LLC

Background

Brianna Tabler brought a proposed class action against Panera LLC under California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law. She alleged that Panera marketed bread products as “clean” or “100% clean,” while the products contained residue of glyphosate, a synthetic chemical. She alleged that she purchased Panera’s Whole Grain Bagel and other unspecified bread products at three California retail outlets and relied on Panera’s “clean” representations when making those purchases.

Panera moved to dismiss, or alternatively to stay the case or strike portions of the complaint. Panera argued that no reasonable consumer would understand the “clean” statements to mean that the products were free of glyphosate, that Tabler had not pleaded reliance with the specificity required for fraud-based claims, that federal food-labeling law preempted the claims, and that the claims should await agency action concerning glyphosate. Panera also challenged Tabler’s request for injunctive relief and claims concerning products she did not purchase.

Court’s Analysis

The court rejected Panera’s express-preemption argument. It concluded that Tabler was challenging allegedly misleading “clean” and “100% clean” statements, not claiming that Panera could not sell products containing glyphosate within federally permitted limits. The court found that neither federal law required Panera to use those statements, and that requiring Panera to refrain from allegedly misleading labeling would not conflict with federal law. The court therefore denied the motion to dismiss on the basis of express preemption.

The court also rejected Panera’s request to dismiss or stay the case under the primary-jurisdiction doctrine. That doctrine can allow a court to pause or dismiss a case while an administrative agency resolves an issue within the agency’s special expertise. The court concluded that Tabler’s claims concerned whether Panera’s labels were misleading, not whether glyphosate was safe for human consumption or whether regulatory tolerance levels should change. The court denied Panera’s motion to dismiss or stay on that basis.

The court dismissed Tabler’s request for injunctive relief for lack of Article III standing. It found that the complaint did not allege a real and immediate threat of future injury. Tabler alleged only that she might purchase Panera products in the future, which the court found insufficient to establish an imminent injury.

The court also dismissed the claims based on products Tabler did not purchase. Although the court applied a test allowing claims involving unpurchased products when they are substantially similar to purchased products, it found that the complaint did not provide enough information to determine whether the other products were substantially similar to the Whole Grain Bagel or the other unspecified bread products Tabler purchased.

Finally, the court held that the complaint did not plead reliance with the particularity required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). The complaint identified a range of representative advertisements but did not specify which statements Tabler saw, when she saw them, which products she purchased, or which statements influenced her purchases. The court also held that the narrow exception for long-term, pervasive advertising campaigns did not apply because Tabler did not adequately allege the duration, extent, or pervasiveness of Panera’s campaign.

Disposition

The court granted Panera’s motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, with leave for Tabler to amend. It separately granted dismissal of the request for injunctive relief and, in part, of the claims based on products Tabler did not purchase. The court denied Panera’s request to stay the case and denied as moot Panera’s request to strike portions of the complaint. The court also denied as moot Panera’s requests for judicial notice because it did not need the requested materials to decide the motion.

The court gave Tabler 30 days to file an amended complaint. If she did not timely amend or failed to correct the identified deficiencies, the deficient claims would be dismissed with prejudice. The order also stated that she could not add new claims or parties without a stipulation or the court’s permission.

Issues Not Decided

Because it dismissed the complaint on other grounds, the court did not decide whether a reasonable consumer would understand Panera’s statements to mean that the products were free of glyphosate residue. It also did not decide whether Tabler was an adequate class representative.