Harville v. Three Wishes Foods, Inc.

Background

Lydia Harville filed a class action against Three Wishes Foods, Inc. concerning the labeling and marketing of the amount of protein in Three Wishes cereal and the alleged unlawful fortification of the cereal. The complaint alleges violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, false advertising, and common-law fraud and/or misrepresentation.

The complaint alleges that Three Wishes’ cereal uses plant-based proteins, including proteins derived from chickpea, pea, and tapioca. The front label states that a serving contains 8 grams of protein. Harville contends that the label is false or misleading because it does not state a corrected protein amount calculated using the Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score, a method that accounts for protein quality and digestibility and expresses the result as a percentage of the daily value. She alleges that this method would produce a protein amount lower than the 8 grams advertised. She also alleges that the cereal is an unlawfully fortified “snack product” and that its nutrition labels therefore contain deceptive and misleading claims.

Motions and related appeals

Three Wishes moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing in part that Harville’s claims were expressly or impliedly preempted by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. That motion was pending when Three Wishes moved to stay the case until the Ninth Circuit decided Nacarino v. Kashi Company, Brown v. Kellogg Company, and Davidson v. Sprout Foods, Inc. The appeals address preemption issues raised by Three Wishes in this case. The opinion notes that the Ninth Circuit consolidated the Nacarino and Brown appeals.

Reasons for the stay

The court applied the rule that federal courts may pause proceedings to manage their dockets efficiently, weighing the competing interests affected by a stay. It considered whether Three Wishes would face hardship or inequity without a stay, whether Harville would suffer undue delay or prejudice, and whether a stay would promote the orderly administration of justice by simplifying the issues, evidence, or legal questions.

The court found that the hardship factor weighed slightly in favor of a stay. Without a stay, both parties could incur substantial litigation expenses—including discovery, expert work, and motion practice—on liability theories that might be preempted. Continuing the litigation also created a potential for inconsistent rulings and confusion.

The court found that the delay factor weighed slightly against a stay because pausing the case could harm Harville’s ability to litigate before discovery and could delay injunctive relief. The court nevertheless concluded that the appeals were sufficiently advanced: the appeals had been briefed, and the Nacarino/Brown appeal had been argued. The court also considered Three Wishes’ assertion that the cereal labels had changed to include the information Harville alleged was missing.

The court found that the orderly-justice factor weighed heavily in favor of a stay. Although the Ninth Circuit appeals would not address every theory of liability, the decisions would provide guidance on overlapping legal issues. The court also rejected Harville’s argument that Three Wishes had not shown the unusual circumstances required for a stay, noting that courts in the district routinely grant stays when related factual or legal issues are pending in another court or on appeal.

Disposition

The court granted Three Wishes’ motion to stay and stayed the case. The parties were ordered to file status reports about the Ninth Circuit proceedings every 180 days. The order does not prevent either party from moving to lift the stay before the appeals are resolved.

The order terminated the pending motion to dismiss, ECF No. 17. Three Wishes may re-notice that motion after the stay is lifted. The order did not decide the preemption question, the sufficiency of Harville’s claims, or any other merits issue.