Norman v. Gerber Products Company

Background

Faith Norman challenged Gerber Products Company’s labeling of its products as “Non GMO.” Her Second Amended Class Action Complaint asserted nine causes of action: violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act; breach of express warranty; breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; unjust enrichment and restitution; negligent misrepresentation; fraud; and fraudulent misrepresentation.

The opinion incorporated the facts and legal standards from the court’s earlier order on Gerber’s motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. In this order, the court addressed whether the Second Amended Complaint adequately stated claims for equitable monetary relief and claims involving Mixed Tocopheryls, also described as a synthetic, water-soluble form of Vitamin E used as a preservative.

Equitable restitution and unjust enrichment

The court had previously dismissed Norman’s claim for equitable monetary relief because she had not shown that she lacked an adequate remedy at law. An adequate remedy at law generally means a legal remedy, such as damages, that would sufficiently address the alleged injury.

Norman argued that a full refund would require her to prove that the products had no market value. She also alleged that her claims for damages under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act and common law would require greater proof and that a jury trial would make damages less prompt and certain. The court rejected these arguments, concluding that they did not show that damages were inherently inadequate or incomplete. Instead, the court reasoned that Norman’s inability to obtain damages would result from the possible failure of her damages claims on the merits, not from an inherent limitation in the legal remedy.

The court therefore granted Gerber’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the claims for equitable restitution and unjust enrichment. It did not grant leave to amend at that time, but it did not prevent Norman from seeking leave to amend as the litigation proceeded.

Mixed Tocopheryls and Vitamin E claims

Norman alleged that Mixed Tocopheryls were among the ingredients in Gerber’s products that qualified as genetically modified organisms. Gerber argued that these claims should be dismissed for the same reasons the court had previously dismissed claims involving another group of ingredients.

The court noted that Norman’s allegations about Mixed Tocopheryls were less detailed than her allegations about ingredients such as citric acid or soy lecithin. Nevertheless, the court concluded that it was reasonable to infer that the listed ingredients fell within one of two broader categories identified in the complaint: animal byproducts described as “Non GMO” or ingredients derived from genetically modified crops.

The court therefore denied Gerber’s motion to dismiss insofar as it challenged the claims based on Mixed Tocopheryls.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part Gerber’s motion to dismiss. The parties were ordered to submit a required stipulation and proposed scheduling order by April 7, 2023.