Nacarino v. Chobani, LLC

Background

Elena Nacarino brought a putative class action against Chobani, LLC under California consumer-protection law. She alleged that a Chobani yogurt container used the word “Vanilla,” vanilla imagery, and descriptive language suggesting a vanilla flavor, even though the flavor was not independently derived from the vanilla plant and included other non-vanilla plant flavoring. Her remaining claim alleged that the label violated California’s Sherman Law and federal food-labeling regulation 21 C.F.R. § 101.22(i), which the Sherman Law incorporates.

In an earlier order, the court dismissed Nacarino’s claims under the unfair and fraudulent provisions of California’s Unfair Competition Law, the False Advertising Law, and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The court allowed her claim under the unlawful provision of the Unfair Competition Law to proceed based on the alleged federal labeling violation, and allowed her to amend her request for equitable restitution by alleging that money damages were inadequate.

Motion to Dismiss

Chobani argued that the third amended complaint failed to plausibly allege that Nacarino relied on the label, suffered an injury, or satisfied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)’s heightened pleading standard for allegations grounded in fraud. Chobani also argued that Nacarino lacked Article III standing to seek injunctive relief and that she could not seek equitable restitution because she had not shown that money damages were inadequate.

The court denied the motion to dismiss. It held that Nacarino’s allegations that she read and relied on the label, believed the vanilla flavor came independently from the vanilla plant, and would not have bought the product—or would have paid less—if she had known the alleged truth were sufficient at the pleading stage to allege reliance and injury. The court also held that her allegations explained how she relied on the label and therefore satisfied Rule 9(b)’s requirements.

The court declined to remove the restitution request at this early stage. It explained that the adequacy of a legal remedy could be reassessed later and that Nacarino’s earlier damages claim under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act had been dismissed on the merits. The court also rejected Chobani’s standing argument. Although the Ninth Circuit’s later decision in a related labeling case warranted reconsideration of the issue, the court found that decision distinguishable because Nacarino alleged that she would buy the product again if it were reformulated or properly labeled, rather than merely saying she would consider buying it.

Motion to Strike

Chobani alternatively moved under Rule 12(f) to strike allegations it said exceeded the limited permission to amend. The court concluded that allegations supporting Nacarino’s new theory—that the vanilla flavor was not independently derived from the vanilla plant—including allegations about laboratory testing and vanillin, were within the permitted scope of amendment.

The court held that other allegations were outside that scope and struck them. Those allegations concerned Nacarino’s purchase of the 32-ounce product, her revised request for an injunction ordering corrective action rather than a corrective advertising campaign, and her revised benefit-of-the-bargain allegations stating that she would have bought other properly labeled products.

Disposition

The court DENIED Chobani’s motion to dismiss. It GRANTED in part and DENIED in part Chobani’s motion to strike Nacarino’s new allegations. The order disposed of Docket No. 54.