Figy

Figy v. Frito-Lay North America, Inc.

Good Law

67 F. Supp. 3d 1075·2014 WL 3953755·2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111732

United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaAugust 12, 2014Case No. 13-3988 SCCalifornia6,934 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Conti, J.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

I. INTRODUCTION

Now before the Court is Defendant Frito-Lay North America, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) motion to dismiss Plaintiffs Robert Figy and Mary Swearingen’s (“Plaintiffs”) first amended complaint. ECF Nos.. 17 (“FAC”), 25 (“MTD”). The motion is fully briefed, ECF Nos. 31 (“Opp’n”), 1 34 (“Reply”), and suitable for decision without oral argument. Civ. L.R. 7 — 1(b). For the reasons explained below, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendant’s motion.

II. BACKGROUND

Defendant, a Texas corporation, makes snack food products. Plaintiffs are two California consumers who purchased three of Defendant’s pretzel products between August 27, 2009 and the present (the “Class Period”). FAC Intro. ¶ 4. 2 Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that they purchased “Frito-Lay’s Rold Gold Sticks Pretzels,” “Frito-Lay’s Rold Gold Thins Pretzels,” “Frito-Lay’s Rold Gold Low Fat Tiny Twists Pretzels,” (collectively, the “Purchased Products”), and were misled by portions of their labels. Id. ¶¶ 5-6. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and a putative class, filed this action against…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.