Akridge v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc.

Background

Howard Akridge brought a proposed class action under the Class Action Fairness Act against Whole Foods Market Group, Inc. He alleged that Whole Foods had a pattern of mislabeling prepared foods and certain packaged products, including by failing to disclose allergens. His claims included alleged violations of Sections 349 and 350 of the New York General Business Law, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, breach of warranty, and unjust enrichment. He sought injunctive relief and money damages.

Akridge alleged that Whole Foods had issued numerous recalls involving products with undeclared allergens and that the Food and Drug Administration had issued Whole Foods a warning letter concerning misbranded foods. He alleged that he purchased prepared foods, including cakes, dips, cheese, and other foods, at Whole Foods stores between October 2018 and November 2020. The complaint did not identify a specific mislabeled product that he purchased. It also did not identify an allergen to which he was allergic or that he sought to avoid, and it did not allege that he suffered an allergic reaction.

Motion and Legal Standards

Whole Foods moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that Akridge lacked Article III standing. Standing requires a plaintiff to plausibly allege a concrete and personal injury, a connection between that injury and the defendant’s conduct, and a likelihood that the requested court order would remedy the injury. Whole Foods also moved under Rule 12(b)(6), which addresses whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim, and alternatively sought a more definite statement under Rule 12(e), which applies when a pleading is so vague or unclear that the opposing party cannot reasonably respond.

Because standing is a threshold requirement for federal jurisdiction, the court considered the Rule 12(b)(1) challenge first. On a facial challenge based on the complaint, the court accepted the complaint’s material factual allegations as true but required Akridge to allege facts plausibly showing his own injury.

Standing Analysis

The court concluded that Akridge had not plausibly alleged an injury in fact. Although he alleged that he bought prepared foods of the type involved in Whole Foods’ recalls, he did not allege that he actually purchased any food that was mislabeled or recalled. His allegation that he might have paid more for foods with undisclosed allergens depended on an inference that he had purchased a mislabeled product. The court held that he could not establish standing through conclusory allegations or an unwarranted inference.

The court distinguished a prior Second Circuit decision involving Whole Foods. In that case, the plaintiff alleged that he regularly bought specifically identified products, and a government report stated that nearly 90% of the relevant products were mislabeled. The court found Akridge’s allegations less concrete because the FDA warning letter was not specific to the New York City stores where he shopped, did not state what percentage of products were mislabeled, and did not identify particular products that Akridge purchased.

Because the court found no adequately alleged standing, it held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Whole Foods’ Rule 12(b)(6) arguments on the merits. It also did not reach Whole Foods’ Rule 12(e) request for a more definite statement.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court stated that a plaintiff may generally receive an opportunity to amend when a jurisdictional pleading defect might be cured and amendment would not unfairly prejudice the defendant. Because Akridge might be able to establish standing, the court granted him leave to amend. The court granted Whole Foods’ motion to dismiss and stated that Akridge could file an amended complaint by April 20, 2022; otherwise, the case would be closed. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.