1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 KYLE BANTA YOSHIDA, et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-09458-JD

5 Plaintiffs,

ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS

v. 6

7 CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY, Defendant. 8

9 10 Defendant Campbell Soup Company’s request to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule 11 of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is granted. Dkt. No. 24. The complaint alleges that the sugars 12 occurring naturally in the fruits and vegetables used in Campbell’s V8 juices make label phrases 13 such as “boost your morning nutrition” and “healthy greens” deceptive to consumers. See Dkt. 14 No. 1 ¶1. The juices do not contain added sugars, and the complaint’s claims are based solely on 15 the sugars present in the plant ingredients. 16 No reasonable consumer would be misled by the challenged phrases because the actual 17 sugar content is plainly stated on the labels, along with disclosures of beneficial vitamin and 18 nutrient content. Consequently, a reasonable consumer would have all the information he or she 19 needed to decide whether the juices are a net benefit or detriment to personal health. While it is 20 true that the question of consumer deception is often a factual matter unsuitable for resolution in a 21 pleadings motion, see Milan v. Clif Bar & Co., Case No. 18-cv-02354-JD, 2019 WL 3934918 at 22 *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2019), plaintiff Yoshida still has the initial burden of pleading “factual 23 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 24 misconduct alleged” as informed by “judicial experience and common sense.” Cannara v. 25 Nemeth, 467 F. Supp. 3d 877, 882 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 26 (2009)), aff'd, 21 F.4th 1169 (2021). The complaint did not cross this threshold. Milan does not 27 compel a different outcome because it involved added sugars and other facts distinguishable from 1 Yoshida may file an amended complaint by June 21, 2022. A failure to meet this deadline 2 || will result in a dismissal of the case with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 3 The Court reaches no conclusion about whether any of the challenged statements are improper 4 || health statements, but to the extent Yoshida does seek to allege that Campbell made an improper 5 health statement vis-a-vis naturally occurring sugars in the juices, the claims may not be viable. 6 See 21 U.S.C. § 343-1(a); 21 CFR § 101.14(a); 21 C.F.R. § 101.65(d); see also Clark v. Perfect 7 || Bar, LLC, 816 F. App’x 141, 143 (9th Cir. 2020) (unpublished). Campbell’s request for judicial 8 notice, Dkt. No. 25, is denied. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: May 27, 2022 11 12

JAME NATO

13 Unitedfftates District Judge

15 16

= 17

Z 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28