DiGiacinto v. EuroPharma, Inc.

Background

Joseph DiGiacinto alleged that EuroPharma’s supplement label would lead a reasonable consumer to believe that each softgel delivered 750 milligrams of curcumin. The label placed “750mg” in a circle in the upper-left corner and stated “SUPERIOR ABSORPTION CURCUMIN” across the middle. According to DiGiacinto, however, the 750-milligram figure referred to the amount of EuroPharma’s proprietary complex, not the amount of curcumin.

The complaint asserted claims under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA, as well as claims for express warranty, implied warranty of merchantability, and unjust enrichment. The opinion does not spell out the full names of the UCL, FAL, or CLRA statutes.

Reasoning

The court applied the standard requiring a complaint to allege that a significant portion of the general consuming public or targeted consumers, acting reasonably, could be misled. It concluded that the complaint did not adequately do so. The complaint focused on the milligram figure and the word “curcumin,” even though those items were not next to each other on the label. It did not explain why consumers would disregard the references to “superior absorption curcumin,” “clinically studied curcumin with turmerones,” and the proprietary complex.

The court also rejected the argument that the nutrition panel improperly used fine print to contradict the front label. The court explained that fine print can be insufficient when it takes back what the front label represented, but that principle applies only when the front label itself is adequately alleged to be misleading. Here, the court viewed the nutrition panel’s identification of the 750 milligrams as the amount of the proprietary complex as a clarification of the front label.

The express warranty claim failed because the product did not make an untrue statement. The implied warranty of merchantability claim failed because the product was not so unfit for its basic purpose as to be unmerchantable. The unjust-enrichment claim had to rise or fall with the other claims.

Disposition

The court granted EuroPharma’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed the UCL, FAL, and CLRA claims for failure to state a claim, and it also dismissed the express warranty, implied warranty of merchantability, and unjust-enrichment claims. The dismissal was with leave to amend. An amended complaint was due within 21 days of the order; if none was filed, dismissal would be with prejudice.

The court considered the full product label because EuroPharma provided it and the complaint incorporated it by reference. It denied the remainder of EuroPharma’s request for judicial notice because the other documents were unnecessary to resolve the motion, and it denied DiGiacinto’s motion to file supplemental authority. Judge Vince Chhabria signed the order.