Brown v. NATURES PATH FOODS, INC.

Background

The plaintiffs alleged that protein representations on the labels of more than fifty Nature’s Path products overstated the amount of protein provided and failed to include the legally required daily-value percentage for protein on the nutrition facts panels. In an earlier motion to dismiss, Nature’s Path argued that the plaintiffs had not alleged that they read or relied on those panels when making purchasing decisions. The court agreed that the complaint had a reliance problem and allowed the plaintiffs to amend.

The first amended complaint alleged that the plaintiffs regularly checked the nutrition facts panel before purchasing products. Nature’s Path then filed another motion to dismiss, arguing that the amended complaint still did not allege that any plaintiff actually reviewed and relied on the panel before buying a product. The plaintiffs moved for leave to file a second amended complaint alleging more specifically that they looked at and read the nutrition facts panel on Hemp Hearts Granola before purchasing it for the first time.

Legal standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 generally directs courts to allow amendment when justice requires. Courts consider factors including undue delay, bad faith, repeated failure to fix defects, prejudice to the opposing party, and futility. The court noted that requests to amend should be granted with extreme liberality and that the purpose of the rule is to facilitate decisions on the merits rather than on pleading technicalities.

Court’s analysis

The court found that the proposed amendment was not futile because the new allegations would support the plaintiffs’ argument that they had standing under Article III of the Constitution by showing that they reviewed and relied on the nutrition facts panels before buying the products. The court also said the allegations appeared to address the previously identified reliance problem.

Nature’s Path argued that the new reliance allegations were not credible. The court held that this raised a factual question that could not be resolved on a motion for leave to amend or on a motion to dismiss, because factual allegations must be accepted as true at the pleading stage and reasonable inferences must be drawn in the plaintiffs’ favor.

The court acknowledged that Nature’s Path would face prejudice from responding to a third complaint after briefing two motions to dismiss. It also found some unexplained delay because the plaintiffs had taken almost a year to allege that they read the nutrition facts panels. Nevertheless, the court concluded that the proposed amendment would facilitate a decision on the remaining claims on their merits. It said any concern about the truth of the allegations was better addressed later through the evidence.

Disposition

The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file the proposed Second Amended Complaint. It ordered the plaintiffs to file it by August 19, 2022. The parties could file supplemental briefs of no more than ten pages addressing the effect of the new allegations on Nature’s Path’s pending motion to dismiss by August 26, 2022. The hearing on that motion was continued to September 15, 2022, and the order terminated Docket No. 63.