Pels v. Keurig Dr. Pepper, Inc.

Background

John Pels filed an amended proposed class-action complaint against Keurig Dr. Pepper, Inc. concerning Peñafiel water, which was labeled and advertised as “mineral spring water.” The complaint alleged that Peñafiel water had contained arsenic above the Food and Drug Administration’s 10-parts-per-billion standard and asserted five claims: violations of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, two theories under California’s Unfair Competition Law, violation of California’s False Advertising Law, and unjust enrichment. The first four claims were brought for a proposed class of California consumers; the unjust-enrichment claim was brought for a proposed nationwide class.

Keurig moved to dismiss on several grounds, including lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution and failure to state a claim. The court addressed standing first and found it unnecessary to decide the failure-to-state-a-claim arguments.

Whether the federal bottled-water standard applied

Keurig argued that the federal bottled-water standard, 21 C.F.R. § 165.110, did not apply because carbonation had been added to Peñafiel water. The court found the regulation ambiguous on that issue and concluded that it applied to Peñafiel because the product was labeled “mineral spring water.” The court relied in part on Food and Drug Administration guidance stating that water described with a term defined by the bottled-water standard must comply with that standard even if carbonation has been added.

Standing and particularized injury

To establish standing, a plaintiff must show a concrete and personal injury, a connection between that injury and the challenged conduct, and a likelihood that a favorable decision would remedy the injury. Keurig argued that Pels had not alleged that he tested the water he bought or that the particular water he purchased contained excessive arsenic.

The court rejected the argument that Pels personally had to test the water. But it agreed that the complaint did not adequately allege that the water Pels purchased contained excessive arsenic. Although Pels argued that all Peñafiel mineral spring water during the proposed class period was contaminated because it came from the same source, the court found that the complaint did not make that allegation clearly. The complaint also did not specify when or where Pels allegedly purchased Peñafiel water.

The court therefore dismissed the amended complaint for lack of standing based on the failure to plead a particularized injury. The court stated that this dismissal was without prejudice.

Injunctive relief

For an injunction, the alleged future harm must be actual and imminent rather than hypothetical. Pels alleged that he would buy Peñafiel water again if Keurig complied with applicable standards. But the court noted that Keurig was no longer selling Peñafiel water in the United States. It concluded that Pels’s alleged future injury was hypothetical and that there was no injunctive relief available under those circumstances.

Disposition

Judge Susan Illston granted Keurig’s motion to dismiss. Specifically, the court granted the motion to dismiss for lack of standing without prejudice and granted the motion to dismiss Pels’s request for injunctive relief with prejudice. The court allowed Pels to file an amended complaint by December 6, 2019. The court also granted the parties’ requests for judicial notice.