Santiful v. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc.

Background

Valerie Santiful and Tameka Rhoden brought a proposed class action against Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. They alleged that Wegmans’s Gluten Free Vanilla Cake Mix was misleadingly labeled with statements including “Vanilla,” “Naturally Flavored,” and “No Artificial Colors, Flavors or Preservatives.” The plaintiffs alleged that the product instead contained artificial flavors, including ethyl vanillin, and that consumers who wanted a product with only natural flavors paid more for it or would not have bought it had they known the alleged facts.

The Second Amended Complaint asserted claims under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, breach of express warranty, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, fraud, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs withdrew their negligent-misrepresentation claim and request for injunctive relief. Wegmans moved to dismiss the remaining claims for failure to state a legally sufficient claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Court’s analysis

For the New York consumer-protection claims, the court explained that the plaintiffs had to plausibly allege consumer-oriented conduct that was materially misleading and caused injury. The court had previously told the plaintiffs that an amended complaint needed nonconclusory, supported allegations showing either that a reasonable consumer would understand “vanilla” to mean predominantly genuine vanilla extract or that the product’s alleged flavoring ingredients were not derived from natural sources and therefore were artificial.

The Second Amended Complaint relied on a laboratory analysis that, according to the opinion, was interpreted solely by the plaintiffs’ attorneys. It did not identify the researcher or provide the testing method, date, time, location, or exact product tested. The court found these omissions especially significant because the alleged amount of ethyl vanillin was 3.07 parts per billion, compared with 225.96 parts per billion of vanillin. The court concluded that the complaint lacked substantiated allegations showing that the product contained artificial flavors and therefore concluded that the labeling would not mislead a reasonable consumer. The claims under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 were dismissed with prejudice. Because of that conclusion, the court did not reach Wegmans’s argument that those claims were preempted by federal law.

The court dismissed the express-warranty claim because the plaintiffs did not provide a factual basis showing that the product contained ethyl vanillin or that the alleged small amount of artificial flavoring made the label a material misstatement. The implied-warranty claim also failed because the plaintiffs did not allege that the cake mix was unfit for human consumption; their theory was that they wanted a cake mix without artificial flavors. The court further held that the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim failed because the plaintiffs had not adequately pleaded a state-law warranty claim and the label statements were product descriptions rather than a warranty against a defect or a promise of performance over a specified period.

The fraud claim failed because the plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged a material misrepresentation or omission, given the lack of support for the presence of artificial flavors. The court also found that the complaint did not provide facts supporting fraudulent intent. The unjust-enrichment claim failed because it was based on the same consumer-deception allegations that did not support the other claims.

Leave to amend and disposition

The plaintiffs asked for permission to file a Third Amended Complaint. The court denied that request because it had previously explained the deficiencies in the First Amended Complaint, had allowed an amendment, and found that the Second Amended Complaint did not correct those deficiencies. The court stated that the plaintiffs did not explain how they could cure the problems identified in the opinion.

Judge Nelson S. Roman granted Wegmans’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The court dismissed the claims in the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice and without leave to replead, directed the clerk to terminate the motion, and closed the case.