Benton v. CVS Health Corporation

Background

Joyce Benton, Melissa Greco, Anthony Swetala, and Ralph Milan sued CVS Pharmacy, Inc. in Alameda County Superior Court. They alleged that CVS violated California’s Unfair Competition Law and Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law by selling homeopathic health products. They sought an injunction preventing CVS from selling those products in California, restitution for their purchases, and attorneys’ fees and costs. CVS Health Corporation was also initially sued, but the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed that defendant.

CVS removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, which generally allows federal courts to hear disputes between citizens of different states when more than $75,000 is at stake. The opinion states that the plaintiffs were California residents and that CVS was incorporated and headquartered in Rhode Island. CVS then moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Its arguments included federal preemption, the primary-jurisdiction doctrine, lack of standing to challenge products the plaintiffs did not buy, and failure to state a claim for an injunction concerning products they did not purchase. The plaintiffs moved to remand the case to state court.

Standing for injunctive relief

The court held that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to pursue injunctive relief in federal court. Standing requires an injury that is actual or imminent, connected to the defendant’s conduct, and likely to be remedied by the requested court order.

The plaintiffs expressly stated that they did not plan to purchase homeopathic products from CVS in the future because they considered those products a “health fraud.” The court distinguished a Ninth Circuit case in which a consumer wanted to buy a properly labeled version of the product in the future. Here, the plaintiffs expressed no interest in purchasing homeopathic products in the future, and the court concluded that a future purchase intention was necessary for standing to seek an injunction.

Amount in controversy

The court also held that diversity jurisdiction could not be established through the restitution claim alone. The plaintiffs had purchased only a small number of products, and the opinion states that the possible restitution totaled less than $100. Although attorneys’ fees can sometimes count toward the amount in controversy, the court declined to include them here because any fees tied to obtaining the unavailable injunction could not be counted and any award under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 was too speculative.

Ruling

The court granted the motion to remand because it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the case. It denied CVS’s motion to dismiss as moot. The court did not address the plaintiffs’ separate argument under Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corporation because it was unnecessary to resolve the remand motion. Judge Richard Seeborg signed the order.