Hernandez v. The Wonderful Company LLC

Background

Bertha Hernandez brought a proposed class action against The Wonderful Company LLC and POM Wonderful LLC concerning POM Wonderful 100% Pomegranate Juice. She alleged that the product was marketed as natural and containing only pomegranate juice, but actually contained per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, which she described as synthetic chemicals. She alleged that independent testing in July 2022 detected two PFAS compounds in a product sample. The tested bottles were not the bottles she purchased and consumed, and the complaint did not state how many bottles were tested, where they came from, how they were tested, or who performed the testing.

Hernandez asserted claims under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, warranty laws of 40 states, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, the New York Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and the New York State Agriculture and Markets Law. She sought to represent people who bought the product for personal use, including a New York subclass.

Judicial Notice

The court granted the defendants’ request for judicial notice only to the extent that it could recognize the existence of PFAS guidance published by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. The court did not consider the information in those materials as proof that the information was true.

Standing and Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The court addressed the jurisdictional argument first.

The court held that Hernandez’s price-premium theory could constitute an injury for purposes of standing: an allegation that she would not have bought the product, or would have paid less for it, could satisfy the injury requirement. But she still had to plead facts making it plausible that she personally bought a product containing PFAS. Because she had not tested the bottles she purchased and did not provide enough information about the testing or the prevalence of PFAS in the product line, the court found that her allegations did not plausibly show that her bottles contained PFAS. The court therefore concluded that Hernandez lacked constitutional standing and that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.

Other Arguments and Leave to Amend

Because it granted the motion under Rule 12(b)(1), the court did not decide the defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) arguments. The court granted Hernandez leave to amend because this was the first opportunity to identify the defects in her pleading and it was not yet clear that amendment would be futile.

Disposition

Judge Edgardo Ramos granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Hernandez was permitted to amend the complaint by January 23, 2024. The order states that if she did not amend by that date, the case would be closed.