Howard
Howard v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
TRACY HOWARD, et al., Case No. 22-cv-00527-VC
Plaintiffs,
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
v. SUMMARY JUDGMENT
HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 192 Defendants.
The motion for summary judgment is granted. This order assumes the reader’s familiarity with the facts, governing legal standards, and arguments made by the parties. Hain’s motion for leave to file a notice of supplemental authority is denied because the authority Hain seeks leave to file is not relevant to the Court’s decision. Products no plaintiff purchased. The motion is granted as to the ten products not purchased by any plaintiff. Cf. Garrison v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., 2014 WL 2451290, at *5 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2014). Unlawful prong claim. Whether this claim can proceed to a jury turns on the interpretation of the phrase “intended specifically for use by infants and children less than 2 years of age” in 21 C.F.R. § 101.13(b)(3). The FDA hasn’t defined the term, and its meaning is unclear. But the best interpretation is that it means something like “intended primarily.” This is somewhat odd, because…