Sanchez v. Nurture, Inc.

Background

Melissa Sanchez brought a proposed class action against Nurture, Inc., alleging that Nurture improperly labeled and misbranded baby and toddler food products sold under the “Happy Baby” and “Happy Tot” brands. She asserted claims under California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law, along with common-law fraud and unjust enrichment.

Sanchez alleged that product packages made express or implied nutrient-content or health claims, including statements such as “2g Fiber” and “600mg Omega-3 ALA.” She alleged that these statements were prohibited for products intended for children under two and misled consumers into believing that Nurture’s products were healthier than competing products. She said she purchased six products in San Jose, California, after reading the labels and paid more than she otherwise would have paid.

Nurture moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim, and Rule 9(b), which requires fraud-based allegations to be stated with particularity.

Standing

The court held that Sanchez had constitutional and statutory standing to challenge labels on unpurchased pouches and puff products. The purchased and unpurchased pouches and puffs appeared similar in their names, ingredients, nutrient claims, and alleged consumer injury. The court said concerns about material differences could be addressed at the class-certification stage.

The court held that Sanchez lacked standing to challenge unpurchased bowls, bars, cereals, baking mixes, Greek yogis, creamies, and cookies. Those products differed significantly in composition and ingredients from the products she purchased.

Unfair Competition Law claims

Sanchez pursued the UCL’s unlawful and fraudulent theories and also asserted an unfair theory. The court granted Nurture’s motion to dismiss the unfair UCL claim because Sanchez did not respond to Nurture’s argument against that theory.

The court denied the motion as to the unlawful UCL theory. California adopts federal food-labeling requirements, and the court concluded that the complaint adequately alleged that statements identifying the levels of nutrients—such as “680 mg Omega-3 (ALA)”—were nutrient-content claims prohibited by federal regulation for the challenged products. The court distinguished those statements from statements describing a nutrient’s function, such as supporting brain development or digestive health, which it found were not nutrient-content claims on the allegations presented.

The court granted the motion as to the fraudulent UCL theory. Although the challenged nutrient statements could violate FDA labeling rules, the court found them truthful and concluded that a reasonable consumer would not be misled into believing that competing products lacked the same nutrients or were inferior merely because their labels did not make the same statements.

False Advertising Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and common-law fraud

The court granted the motion to dismiss Sanchez’s False Advertising Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and common-law fraud claims. Each required allegations showing that Nurture’s practices would mislead a reasonable consumer. The court found that Sanchez had not adequately supported her theories that the labels suggested the nutrients lacked proven benefits for children or that Nurture’s products were superior to competing products.

Unjust enrichment and equitable relief

The court allowed the unjust-enrichment claim to proceed at this stage. It noted that California does not recognize unjust enrichment as a standalone cause of action, but such a claim may be treated as seeking restitution under a quasi-contract theory. Because Sanchez adequately stated an unlawful UCL claim and Nurture did not separately challenge the substance of the unjust-enrichment claim, the court did not dismiss it.

The court found Nurture’s arguments about the availability of legal remedies and injunctive relief moot at that stage because the claims seeking legal remedies had not been adequately pleaded.

Disposition

Judge Edward J. Davila granted in part and denied in part Nurture’s motion to dismiss. The motion was denied as to the unlawful UCL theory and unjust enrichment and granted in all other respects. The court granted Sanchez leave to amend, with any amended complaint due within 30 days of the order’s filing.