Late last week, Judge Valderrama of the Northern District of Illinois issued an order granting in part and denying in part Tropicana’s motion to dismiss the complaint in the class action case of Willard v. Tropicana Manufacturing Company, Inc.
The original complaint was filed by two individuals, Jacqueline Willard and Amie Blackman, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated against Tropicana Manufacturing Company, Inc. alleging it misbranded and falsely advertised Tropicana juice products throughout the United States in violation of federal and state unfair competition, false advertising and consumer protection laws.
According to the court order, Tropicana manufactures, packages, labels, advertises, markets, and sells numerous fruit juice products throughout the United States. The plaintiffs challenge the labeling of 10 of Tropicana’s fruit juice products that all contain DL-malic acid, an ingredient which the plaintiffs’ claim is an artificial flavoring agent.
The plaintiffs’ allege the product’s labels violate federal and state law because they fail to include an “artificially flavored” label, they deceive customers into believing the products are all-natural based on the inclusion of the characterizing fruit flavor and by misidentifying the DL-malic acid contained in the products as generic malic acid on the ingredient list. The plaintiffs’ argue they justifiably relied upon and were deceived by the defendant’s product labeling when they purchased the fruit juices.
In the original complaint, the plaintiffs’ brought the following six causes of action; (1) violation the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, (2) violation of the “unlawful” and “unfair” prongs of California’s Unfair Competition Law, (3) violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, (4) violation of California’s False Advertising Law, (5) fraud by omission under and (6) negligent misrepresentation under Illinois and California law.
In response to the complaint, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) arguing the plaintiffs’ lack standing to bring the claims, and that the claims are preempted, implausible and inadequately pleaded.
In regard to the plaintiffs’ standing, the court held that the plaintiffs have standing to assert claims over any product they purchased, but they lack standing to assert claims over any products they did not actually purchase. Further, the court held that when viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the defendant, as required under a 12(b)(6) motion, the plaintiffs’ claims are not preempted by Food and Drug Administration regulation.
The court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss regarding the violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act for all products purchased in California and for the negligent misrepresentation cause of action for any claim premised on the purchase of “Tropicana 100% Juice Apple Juice” in California. The court granted the defendant’s motion for all other causes of action including claims regarding the violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, for products purchased in Illinois and negligent misrepresentation claims for all products besides “Tropicana 100% Juice Apple Juice” purchased in California.
However, for nine of the 10 fruit juices at issue, the court dismissed the claims without prejudice, allowing the plaintiffs’ to amend their complaint to state adequate facts. The court granted the plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint by January 20 and stated it expects discovery to continue during the plaintiffs leave and while any motions to dismiss are pending.
The plaintiff’s are represented by Elliot Law Office and the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron and the defendant is represented by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP and Fox, Swibel, Levin & Carroll, LLP.
