Forrett v. Gourmet Nut Inc

Background

John Forrett alleged that Gourmet Nut, Inc. manufactured and sold Protein Packed Trail Mix. The product’s packaging used the phrase “PROTEIN PACKED,” stated that protein is important for muscle formation and other purposes, and listed seven grams of protein per serving without a Percent Daily Value for protein. Forrett alleged that a reasonable consumer would understand “Protein Packed” to mean that the product was high in protein or an excellent source of protein, even though federal regulations use a benchmark of ten grams per serving for those regulated claims.

Forrett alleged that he bought the product at a Walmart store in San Jose, California, relied on the packaging, and would not have bought it or paid the same amount without the “Protein Packed” language. His complaint asserted claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), as well as claims for breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment. He sought to represent California and nationwide classes of purchasers.

Court’s analysis

Gourmet Nut moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(6) tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Rule 12(b)(1) concerns the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, including constitutional standing.

For the fraud-based UCL, FAL, and CLRA claims, the court applied the reasonable-consumer test, which asks whether members of the public are likely to be deceived. The court held that “packed” has no defined meaning regarding nutrient content and that Gourmet Nut did not use the federally regulated terms “high,” “rich in,” or “excellent source of.” The court therefore concluded that Forrett had not shown that “Protein Packed” was false or likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. The court also declined to consider theories raised for the first time in Forrett’s opposition, including arguments based on statements about muscle tissue and pre- or post-workout use.

The court dismissed the fraud-based UCL, FAL, and CLRA claims with leave to amend.

For the UCL claims based on the unlawful and unfair prongs, the court held that Forrett waived those claims by failing to address them in his opposition. The court dismissed those claims without leave to amend.

For the express-warranty claim, the court held that “Protein Packed” was not an unequivocal statement or promise and was not an express promise that the product was an excellent source of protein. The court dismissed that claim with leave to amend.

For unjust enrichment, the court explained that it may be alleged as a remedy for another valid claim, but Forrett had not tied it to another claim in the complaint. The court further held that the theory failed even if it were tied to the express-warranty claim, because the warranty claim failed. The court dismissed the unjust-enrichment claim with leave to amend.

Standing and equitable relief

The court granted the motion without leave to amend as to standing on behalf of a nationwide class. The opinion states that Forrett did not defend those claims in his opposition and therefore waived them.

The court also held that Forrett had not specifically alleged a desire to purchase the product in the future. It granted the motion with leave to amend as to standing to seek injunctive relief, meaning an order requiring or prohibiting future conduct.

Separately, the court held that a plaintiff seeking equitable relief must allege that there is no adequate legal remedy. Because Forrett had not pleaded the inadequacy of a legal remedy, the court granted the motion with leave to amend as to the UCL, FAL, and unjust-enrichment claims for lack of equitable jurisdiction.

Disposition

The court granted Gourmet Nut’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend in part and without leave to amend in part. Specifically, it:

- Granted with leave to amend the fraud-based UCL, FAL, and CLRA claims for failure to state a claim. - Granted without leave to amend the UCL claims under the unlawful and unfair prongs. - Granted with leave to amend the express-warranty claim for failure to state a claim. - Granted with leave to amend the unjust-enrichment claim for failure to state a claim. - Granted without leave to amend as to standing on behalf of a nationwide class. - Granted with leave to amend as to standing to seek injunctive relief. - Granted with leave to amend as to the UCL, FAL, and unjust-enrichment claims for lack of equitable jurisdiction.

The court ordered Forrett to file an amended complaint within 30 days. It stated that failure to meet the deadline or cure the identified deficiencies would result in dismissal of the deficient claims with prejudice.