Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 20, 2021

Puri v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

Judge
Edward Davila
Docket
5:21-cv-01202
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
14
Motion to DismissCivil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Puri v. Costco, Judge Davila granted Costco’s motion to dismiss Puri’s ice-cream-bar labeling claims, allowing him to amend.

Who this affects

Puri’s proposed consumer class claims against Costco were dismissed at the pleading stage, but Puri was allowed limited leave to file a second amended complaint.

What happened

Puri v. Costco Wholesale Corporation is a proposed class action about Costco’s Kirkland Signature chocolate almond dipped vanilla ice cream bars. Ankush Puri alleged that the packaging was misleading because the coating contained vegetable oils and did not contain mostly cacao-based ingredients, and he brought claims under California consumer-protection laws.

The court found that Puri’s proposed labeling requirements were preempted, meaning federal food-labeling law displaced those state-law requirements. The court also ruled that Puri had not plausibly shown that a reasonable consumer would be deceived and that his claims did not meet the heightened requirements for fraud allegations. The court did not decide Costco’s arguments about standing for an injunction or the timing of Puri’s request for damages under the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

Judge Edward Davila granted Costco’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Because the court could not say that amendment would be futile, it gave Puri limited leave to amend and ordered him to file a second amended complaint by January 3, 2022.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Puri v. Costco Wholesale Corporation · No. 5:21-cv-01202
Judge
Edward Davila
Date
Dec. 20, 2021

Background

Ankush Puri brought a proposed false-advertising class action against Costco Wholesale Corporation concerning Kirkland Signature “Chocolate Almond Dipped Vanilla Ice Cream Bars.” Puri alleged that the product’s name, pictures, and ingredient labeling misled consumers into believing that its chocolate coating was chiefly made from cacao-bean ingredients. He alleged instead that the coating contained more vegetable oils than cacao-derived ingredients. He also asserted theories based on the product’s taste or texture and on alleged health and nutritional differences between real chocolate and vegetable oils, although he later disclaimed a theory based on flavor.

Puri asserted claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. Costco moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim, and Rule 9(b), which requires fraud allegations to describe the alleged misconduct with particularity.

Court’s Analysis

The court first addressed federal preemption. The federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, preempts state food-labeling requirements that are not identical to federal requirements. The court concluded that, to the extent Puri’s claims sought to require Costco to label the product “milk chocolate and vegetable oil coating” or “milk chocolate and vegetable oil almond dipped ice cream bars,” those claims were preempted because they sought requirements different from or additional to federal requirements.

The court did not decide whether Costco actually complied with federal regulations or policy guidance, and it did not reach Costco’s argument concerning the use of “chocolate” as a flavor designator. The court also noted that Puri had disclaimed a theory based on flavor and was pursuing a theory concerning chocolate as a nutritional ingredient.

The court separately held that Puri failed to state a deceptive-labeling claim under the reasonable-consumer standard. It found that the cited federal regulation defining chocolate as chiefly made from cacao beans did not exist, that Puri’s allegations were internally contradictory, and that his method for estimating the relative weights of the ingredients was speculative. The court noted that Puri’s own allegations identified 15 grams of vegetable oils and 12 grams of cacao-bean ingredients, which did not support his claim that the product was mostly vegetable oils with only a minimal amount of chocolate.

The court further reasoned that a reasonable consumer would not necessarily assume that the chocolate pictured on an ice cream bar’s packaging was the coating’s predominant ingredient, and that the ingredient list provided more detailed information. It also found implausible Puri’s theories that consumers would purchase chocolate-covered ice cream bars for health, nutritional, or satiety benefits, particularly because the packaging made no such claims.

Finally, Costco briefly argued that Puri’s claims sounded in fraud and failed to satisfy Rule 9(b). Puri did not address that argument in his opposition, and the court understood him to have conceded the issue. The court therefore also dismissed all claims for failure to comply with Rule 9(b).

Disposition

The court granted Costco’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint. It dismissed Puri’s claims under the California Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act based on the reasonable-consumer standard and also dismissed all claims for failure to comply with Rule 9(b). The court did not reach whether Puri had standing to seek injunctive relief or whether he timely provided notice of his claim for damages under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

Because the court could not say that amendment would be futile, it granted Puri limited leave to amend. The court directed him to file a second amended complaint by January 3, 2022, alleging a statute or regulation requiring chocolate to be made chiefly from cacao beans.

The authoritative version

Read the full 14-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.