Flodin v. Central Garden & Pet Company
- Jon Tigar
- 4:21-cv-01631
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Flodin v. Central Garden & Pet, Judge Tigar partly granted dismissal, dismissed the “Made in the USA” claims, and denied sanctions.
The plaintiffs’ “Made in the USA” claims were dismissed without leave to amend, while other claims were allowed to remain. The defendants’ sanctions request was denied, and they were ordered to answer within 14 days.
What happened
Flodin v. Central Garden & Pet Company concerns claims that Central Garden & Pet Company and Breeder’s Choice Pet Foods, Inc. misleadingly marketed AvoDerm pet food, including its “Made in the USA” representation. Plaintiffs amended their complaint after the court previously found those claims insufficiently supported.
The court held that the third amended complaint still did not plausibly show that avocado or avocado oil exceeded five percent of the product’s value, as required for the challenged claims. It dismissed the “Made in the USA” claims without leave to amend, but denied defendants’ request to dismiss the entire complaint because the plaintiffs’ allegations were not contradictory. The court also denied defendants’ request for sanctions because it was filed improperly.
Judge Jon S. Tigar issued the July 21, 2023 order. The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part, denied the sanctions request, and ordered defendants to answer within 14 days.
The detailed version
- Flodin v. Central Garden & Pet Company · No. 4:21-cv-01631
- Jon Tigar
- July 21, 2023
Background
The plaintiffs alleged that Central Garden & Pet Company and Breeder’s Choice Pet Foods, Inc. made misleading representations about AvoDerm dog and cat food. The challenged representations included claims that avocado was a “key” or “top” ingredient and the products’ “Made in the USA” representation.
The court had previously dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims based on the “Made in the USA” representation, allowing amendment except for claims under Washington law. The plaintiffs then filed a third amended complaint. Defendants moved to dismiss the entire complaint without leave to amend and requested monetary sanctions.
Ruling on the “Made in the USA” claims
The court held that the third amended complaint did not plausibly allege that avocado or avocado oil made up more than five percent of the product’s final wholesale value. The court explained that allegations describing avocado as a “key” or “top” ingredient, its appearance among the first ten ingredients, the AvoDerm name and packaging, and marketing about avocado’s benefits did not establish any particular percentage by weight or value.
The court therefore dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims based on defendants’ “Made in the USA” representation without leave to amend. The order also stated that discovery could potentially reveal facts relevant to those dismissed claims and that the plaintiffs might then have grounds to seek permission to amend, but the court did not decide in advance whether such a request would be granted.
Other claims and sanctions
The court denied defendants’ renewed request to dismiss the complaint in its entirety based on allegedly contradictory allegations. It maintained that there was no contradiction between alleging that avocado made up a significant percentage of AvoDerm for purposes of the “Made in the USA” claims and alleging that avocado was not significant enough to qualify as a main ingredient for other claims.
The court denied defendants’ request for sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 or the court’s inherent authority because defendants had not separately filed the sanctions motion as required by the court’s local rule.
Disposition
Judge Jon S. Tigar granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the third amended complaint in part and denied it in part. The plaintiffs’ claims based on the “Made in the USA” representation were dismissed without leave to amend. Defendants’ request for sanctions was denied as procedurally improper, and defendants were ordered to file an answer within 14 days of the order.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.