Ham

Ham v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc.

Good Law
70 F. Supp. 3d 1188·2014 WL 4965959·2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141157
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaOctober 3, 2014Case No. 14-cv-02044-WHOCalifornia3,719 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Orrick, J.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS; GRANTING PARTIES’ REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 25,

INTRODUCTION

Defendant Hain Celestial Group Inc. manufactures Earth’s Best Organic Mini Waffles (the “Waffles”), which are identified as “All Natural” on their labels. Plaintiff Ana Belen Ham alleges that the Waffles are not, in fact, “All Natural” because they contain sodium acid pyrophosp-hate (“SAPP”), a synthetic substance, and sued Hain for violations of California consumer protection laws, fraud, breach of contract, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment.

Hain moves to dismiss Ham’s complaint. The papers repeat well-worn arguments from numerous similar cases, and I will apply the reasoning that has developed in the Northern District of California. Hain’s motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Ham’s breach of contract claim is dismissed because the parties lack privity, the unjust enrichment claim is dismissed because unjust enrichment is not an independent cause of action, and injunctive relief is not available. The motion is denied in all other respects because Ham has plausibly alleged that the “All Natural” label is…

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.