Simeone v. T. Marzetti Company

Background

Cynthia Simeone, Takisha Jones, and Phyllis Charney brought a proposed class action against T. Marzetti Company. They alleged that the company’s Ultimate Garlic, Real Garlic, Five Cheese, and Real Parmesan Texas Toast products were deceptively labeled and advertised as containing “No Preservatives.” The products listed citric acid as an ingredient, and the plaintiffs alleged that citric acid functioned as a preservative in the products.

The plaintiffs asserted claims for damages under Sections 349 and 350 of the New York General Business Law. Section 349 addresses deceptive business practices, and Section 350 addresses false advertising. The plaintiffs alleged that they relied on the “No Preservatives” label when buying the products and would not have purchased them, or would have paid significantly less, if they had known the products contained preservatives.

Motion to Dismiss

T. Marzetti Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. The company argued that the plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged that the products contained a preservative, that the label was materially misleading to reasonable consumers, or that the plaintiffs suffered an injury. The company also argued that federal food-labeling law preempted the state-law claims.

The court accepted the complaint’s factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion and drew reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs’ favor. It concluded that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged that citric acid can function as a preservative in food, including frozen food, and that it served that function in these products. The court also found that alleging a “No Preservatives” label on products containing a preservative was enough at this stage to plausibly allege a materially misleading representation.

The court further held that the plaintiffs adequately alleged injury under a price-premium theory. They alleged that they relied on the label and would not have bought the products or would have paid less if they had known the truth. The court found those allegations sufficient at the pleading stage.

Federal Preemption

The court rejected the company’s argument that the claims were preempted by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act. The plaintiffs were challenging the truthfulness of the existing “No Preservatives” label, not seeking to impose a different ingredient-labeling requirement. The court also determined that the plaintiffs were not suing to enforce the federal food-labeling law; they were asserting state-law claims that allegedly would exist under traditional fraud principles even without that federal law.

Other Request and Disposition

The plaintiffs asked the court to strike statements from the company’s motion papers, but the court denied that request because the applicable rule concerns pleadings and does not apply to motions to dismiss. The plaintiffs had also represented that they would withdraw their request for injunctive relief, so the court did not consider the company’s arguments concerning that relief.

Judge Kenneth M. Karas denied T. Marzetti Company’s motion to dismiss. The court directed the plaintiffs to amend the amended complaint within 30 days to withdraw their claim for injunctive relief. The opinion did not dismiss the plaintiffs’ damages claims.