Balistreri v. McCormick & Company, Inc.

Background

Seven plaintiffs—Kelly Balistreri, Tony Michel, Tam Dang, Lance Snead, Frank Ortega, Hollie Pour, and Jason Jordan—sued McCormick & Company, Inc., individually and on behalf of proposed classes. They alleged that certain McCormick herbs and spices contained or risked containing lead, arsenic, and cadmium, referred to in the opinion as “Heavy Metals.” The plaintiffs alleged that they relied on the product packaging, including the statement “The Taste You Trust,” and would not have purchased the products had they known about the alleged presence or risk of Heavy Metals.

The complaint asserted 11 claims involving California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act; implied warranties under the Song-Beverly Act and the Uniform Commercial Code; fraud; unjust enrichment under California and Washington law; negligent failure to warn; and the Washington Consumer Protection Act. The plaintiffs sought damages, restitution, injunctive and declaratory relief, and other remedies.

McCormick moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), which concerns subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Standing, Preemption, and Primary Jurisdiction

The court rejected McCormick’s argument that the plaintiffs lacked an injury in fact. The plaintiffs alleged that they paid for products they would not have bought had they known about the alleged Heavy Metals. The court held that this alleged economic loss was sufficient at the standing stage, even though the plaintiffs did not allege physical injury.

The court also held that the plaintiffs had standing to seek injunctive relief. Their allegations indicated that they continued to want to purchase McCormick products but could not make informed decisions while the products were allegedly marketed without adequate disclosure.

The court rejected McCormick’s federal-preemption argument. It concluded that the federal food laws did not clearly show an intent to prevent states from applying consumer-protection laws to Heavy Metals labeling in herbs and spices. The court also rejected McCormick’s request to apply the primary-jurisdiction doctrine, which can defer a case when an administrative agency should address a specialized issue first. The court found no sufficient showing that the Food and Drug Administration was actively conducting relevant rulemaking and concluded that the claims principally involved whether the labels were misleading, rather than issues uniquely requiring the agency’s expertise.

Failure to State a Claim

The court held that the complaint failed to state a plausible claim under Rule 12(b)(6). It found that “The Taste You Trust” was non-actionable puffery: a general and vague statement about product superiority, rather than a specific representation about the products’ ingredients, health, or safety. The plaintiffs had not alleged that they saw or relied on statements about health and safety on McCormick’s website, and the complaint did not provide facts showing that the packaging statement, combined with an omission, would mislead a reasonable consumer about Heavy Metals.

Because the complaint did not identify an actionable misrepresentation or omission, the court dismissed the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act claims and the California Unfair Competition Law claims based on unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices. The same reasoning led the court to dismiss the California False Advertising Law claims, the common-law fraud claim, and the California and Washington unjust-enrichment claims.

The court also dismissed the implied-warranty claims under the Song-Beverly Act and the Uniform Commercial Code. It found that the complaint did not plausibly allege that the products contained Heavy Metals at levels making them unfit for human consumption or failing to meet the minimum level of quality for herbs and spices. The court characterized the Consumer Reports study as ranking the products as presenting “Some Concern,” not as establishing that they were unfit for consumption, and noted the study’s disclaimer that its findings were a market spot check rather than definitive conclusions about brands.

The negligent-failure-to-warn claim was dismissed because the complaint did not allege facts showing the applicable standard of care or how McCormick’s conduct fell below that standard. The court also dismissed the Washington Consumer Protection Act claim because the plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged an unfair or deceptive act. The court did not separately decide McCormick’s argument concerning equitable relief because it found that the plaintiffs had not stated a plausible underlying claim warranting that relief.

Disposition

The court granted McCormick’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) as to Counts 1 through 11, with leave to amend. It ordered the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint by October 5, 2023. The order did not dismiss the claims based on lack of standing, preemption, or primary jurisdiction; instead, it dismissed them because the complaint did not adequately plead the claims.