Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Opinion Preview

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

  • Case Opinion

Davis v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc.

Davis v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc.

United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York

April 3, 2018, Decided; April 3, 2018, Filed

17-cv-5191-ARR-RML

Opinion

 [*330]  OPINION & ORDER

ROSS, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Josh Davis brings this putative class action against The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. ("Celestial") and Hain BluePrint,  [*331]  Inc. ("BluePrint") on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, seeking monetary and injunctive relief. He alleges that defendants, which manufacture and sell juice, have engaged in deceptive product labeling in violation of N.Y. General Business Law sections 349 and 350. Plaintiff also brings claims for fraudulent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment based on the same alleged conduct. Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. In addition, defendants argue that the unjust enrichment claim must also be dismissed because it duplicates the other claims in the complaint. Finally, defendants argue that plaintiff lacks standing to seek injunctive relief. [**2]  For the reasons discussed below, defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part.

BACKGROUND

BluePrint—a wholly owned subsidiary of Celestial Group—manufactures personal-sized juices and sells them to third-party sellers and directly to consumers. First Amended Complaint ¶ 3, ECF No. 11 ("Compl."). The two BluePrint product lines at issue in this case are their "BluePrint Cold Pressed" juices and their "BluePrint Organic" juices (individually, the "Cold-Pressed Line" and the "Organic Line"; collectively, the "Products"). Id. ¶¶ 2-3 & n.1.

Plaintiff bought two BluePrint beverages in 2016. Id. ¶¶ 90, 93. First, he bought a juice from the Cold-Pressed Line for roughly $7.99 at a local store. Id. ¶ 90. The front label said "beet, apple, carrot, lemon, ginger" and "raw." Id. ¶¶ 90-91. The side label listed the ingredients (in order of weight1 ) as "organic apple, organic carrot, organic beet, filtered water, organic lemon and organic ginger." Id. ¶ 65. Plaintiff alleges that the label led him to believe that the product was cold-pressed and raw, and—because beet was listed first on the front label and because the beverage itself was red—that the drink was predominantly made of beet [**3]  juice (allegedly the most expensive ingredient). Id. ¶¶ 65, 91-92. Second, he purchased a juice from the Organic Line, titled "Lemon Yay," for roughly $2.99 at a local store. Id. ¶ 93. The back label stated that the beverage was "crafted with cold pressed juice." Id. Plaintiff contends that he relied on these representations in purchasing both drinks. Id. ¶¶ 91, 93.

Plaintiff filed the operative complaint in December 2017. Id. The complaint brings claims for (1) deceptive commercial practices and false advertising in violation of N.Y. General Business Law sections 349 and 350, id. ¶¶ 97-107, (2) fraudulent misrepresentation, id. ¶¶ 108-20, and (3) unjust enrichment, id. ¶¶ 121-22. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that labels would mislead a reasonable consumer and that he, in fact, was misled. Id. ¶¶ 99-106. Further, he alleges that defendants had an affirmative duty to disclose that "the Products were processed" and that "their definition of a raw product excludes products which are fresh." Id. ¶ 110. Finally, he alleges that defendants improperly obtained profits that they must disgorge to the plaintiff and class members. Id. ¶ 122.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

297 F. Supp. 3d 327 *; 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56794 **; 2018 WL 1611375

JOSH DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, -against- THE HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC; and HAIN BLUEPRINT, INC., Defendants.

CORE TERMS

juice, label, pressed, cold, ingredients, organic, consumer, alleges, Cold-Pressed, misleading, processing, defendants', motion to dismiss, products, front, injunctive relief, lemon juice, fraudulent misrepresentation, heat, raw, unjust enrichment, beet, predominant, lemon, false advertising, competitors', beverage, crafted, shelf life, fraudulent