Greenpeace, Inc. v. Walmart, Inc.
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:21-cv-00754
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Greenpeace v. Walmart: Judge Chesney granted Walmart’s motion to dismiss, dismissed Greenpeace’s complaint with leave to amend, and found standing allegations insufficient.
Greenpeace, Inc. may amend its complaint to add facts supporting standing; Walmart Inc. obtained dismissal of the Third Amended Complaint, subject to that opportunity to amend.
What happened
In Greenpeace, Inc. v. Walmart Inc., Greenpeace claimed Walmart violated California’s Environmental Marketing Claims Act and sought to proceed under California’s unfair-competition law.
The court rejected Walmart’s argument that a private party could not base an unfair-competition claim on an Environmental Marketing Claims Act violation. But it found Greenpeace had not adequately alleged that it requested information from Walmart or that it was likely to divert resources in the future because of Walmart’s alleged failure to provide information.
Judge Maxine M. Chesney granted Walmart’s motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint and dismissed that complaint with leave to amend. Greenpeace was allowed to file a Fourth Amended Complaint to add facts supporting standing.
The detailed version
- Greenpeace, Inc. v. Walmart, Inc. · No. 3:21-cv-00754
- Maxine Chesney
- May 10, 2022
Background
Walmart moved to dismiss Greenpeace’s Third Amended Complaint. Greenpeace opposed the motion. The court decided the motion based on the written submissions and vacated the scheduled hearing.
Greenpeace pursued a claim under California Business and Professions Code section 17200, California’s unfair-competition law, based on an alleged violation of the Environmental Marketing Claims Act (EMCA). Greenpeace also alleged that it had been denied information covered by the EMCA and had diverted resources to investigate and document Walmart’s representations.
Court’s analysis
The court rejected Walmart’s argument that a private party could not use an EMCA violation as the basis for a section 17200 claim. Citing California and Ninth Circuit authority, the court explained that section 17200 can treat a violation of another law as an independently actionable unlawful business practice, even when the underlying law also provides—or does not provide—a private cause of action.
The court nevertheless found that Greenpeace had not adequately alleged Article III standing, which requires a plaintiff to show an injury sufficient to invoke the federal court’s authority. First, Greenpeace did not clearly allege that it had requested the EMCA information from Walmart. The EMCA provision cited by the court requires information and documentation maintained under the statute to be furnished to a member of the public upon request.
Second, Greenpeace did not clearly allege facts showing that it was likely to divert resources in the future because Walmart allegedly failed to provide the requested information. Allegations that Greenpeace had diverted resources in the past to investigate and document Walmart’s representations were not enough to establish a likely future injury for purposes of seeking an injunction.
Disposition
Judge Maxine M. Chesney granted Walmart’s motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. The court dismissed the Third Amended Complaint with leave to amend so Greenpeace could add facts addressing the identified standing deficiencies. The court ordered Greenpeace to file a Fourth Amended Complaint by May 27, 2022. It also continued the case-management conference from May 27, 2022, to August 19, 2022, and vacated the May 13 hearing.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.