Workman

Workman v. Plum Inc.

Good Law
141 F. Supp. 3d 1032·2015 WL 6664837·2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148426
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaNovember 2, 2015No. C 15-02568 WHACalifornia1,816 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Alsup, J.

ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS

INTRODUCTION

In this food-labeling challenge, defendant food manufacturer moves to dismiss for failure to state a claim. To the extent stated herein, defendant’s motion is Granted.

STATEMENT

Plaintiff Kathryn Workman purchased several varieties of defendant Plum’s Organics Mighty 4 puree pouches and fruit bars in 2014 and 2015. Each Mighty 4 product at issue in our case consists of a puree pouch of blended ingredients or fruit bars marketed for consumption by toddlers. In purchasing the products, plaintiff read, relied on, and was allegedly deceived by the labeling and advertising displayed on the front packaging, namely the pictures of the ingredients on the principal display panel. Each label at issue showed a picture containing ingredients from four different food groups. For example one flavor of puree pouch depicted pumpkin, pomegranate, quinoa, and yogurt, as shown below (Defendant’s RJN; Exh. 1):

*1034 [[Image here]]

These ingredients, however, were not the only items contained in the puree pouches and fruit bars. In fact, the most prominent ingredients in most of the products were apple, pear, or banana puree. As required by the FDA, the…

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.