Young v. PepsiCo, Inc.
- Paul Magnuson
- 0:20-cv-01486
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
Young v. PepsiCo: Judge Magnuson granted PepsiCo’s motion to dismiss and dismissed Young’s food-labeling complaint with prejudice because the law provides no private lawsuit.
LaRon Young’s claims against PepsiCo, Inc. were dismissed with prejudice, ending this case.
What happened
In LaRon Young v. PepsiCo, Inc., LaRon Young, who represented himself, claimed Mountain Dew Voltage’s label misled him into believing the drink contained natural raspberry or raspberry juice. He sued PepsiCo under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and sought an injunction and $5 million in damages.
PepsiCo asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing both that Young had not properly served the company and that the federal food law does not allow a private person to sue for violations. The court agreed that service at a security gate did not meet Minnesota’s service requirements and held that Young could not bring the claimed Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act violations himself.
Judge Magnuson granted PepsiCo’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The court also canceled the scheduled hearing.
The detailed version
- Young v. PepsiCo, Inc. · No. 0:20-cv-01486
- Paul Magnuson
- Aug. 8, 2020
Background
LaRon Young brought the case without a lawyer in Minnesota state court. He alleged that Mountain Dew Voltage was mislabeled because its label said the product was “charged with raspberry citrus flavor,” leading him to believe it contained natural raspberry and raspberry juice. Raspberry was not listed among the ingredients.
Young alleged violations of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. § 343, and six related regulations. He requested an injunction requiring PepsiCo to follow Food and Drug Administration rules and regulations, along with $5,000,000 in compensatory relief.
Court’s analysis
PepsiCo moved to dismiss. The court first addressed service of process, which is the formal delivery of the summons and complaint. Because Young filed in state court, Minnesota’s service rules applied. Those rules require service on a corporate officer, managing agent, or another authorized agent who has sufficient authority or rank that the company would reasonably be informed of the lawsuit.
The affidavit of service stated that a process server left the summons and complaint with someone named Michael “at the security gate” of PepsiCo’s headquarters in Purchase, New York. The court held that a security guard at a corporate gate could not be considered a person fitting the required categories. It therefore concluded that Young had failed to properly serve PepsiCo and stated that the lawsuit could be dismissed on that basis.
The court also considered the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim for relief. The court held that the Act provides no private right of action—that is, it does not authorize a private person to sue for violations of the Act. Because no relief could be granted on Young’s Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act claims, the court concluded that dismissal with prejudice was appropriate.
Disposition
The court granted PepsiCo’s Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the Complaint with prejudice. The court also canceled the hearing scheduled for August 18, 2020. Judge Paul A. Magnuson signed the order on August 8, 2020.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.