Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

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

Miller v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co.

Miller v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co.

United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division

December 6, 2012, Decided; December 7, 2012, Filed

No. C 12-04936 LB

Opinion

 [*863]  ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Scott Miller bought a package of "Ghirardelli Chocolate Premium Baking Chips Classic White" and then — on behalf of himself and other consumers — sued Ghirardelli Chocolate, complaining that this and four other Ghirardelli Chocolate products were marketed as "White" or "White Chocolate Flavored" when they did not contain any white chocolate, in violation of the following state laws: (1) the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et seq.; (2) the False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 et seq.; (3) common-law fraud; and (4) the Unfair  [**2] Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. Ghirardelli moves to dismiss, arguing that Miller does not have standing regarding the four products he never purchased, other claims are preempted by federal regulations, his false advertising claims concerning several products are insufficiently  [*864]  pleaded, and he fails to state a fraud claim about any products.

The court GRANTS the motion on the ground that Miller lacks standing to challenge the four products he did not buy and DENIES Ghirardelli's motion otherwise. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint in 21 days.

STATEMENT

I. BACKGROUND ALLEGATIONS

Ghirardelli Chocolate is a California corporation that manufactures and markets premium chocolate products and non-chocolate products. Complaint, ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 3, 15, 17. 1 Scott Miller is an individual who resides in Auburndale, Florida. Id. ¶ 2. Miller accuses Ghirardelli Chocolate of misleading consumers regarding whether several of its products contain white chocolate.

On June 24, 2012, Miller wanted to buy white chocolate chips and ultimately bought Ghirardelli  [**3] Chocolate's Premium Baking Chips - Classic White" ("baking chips"). Id. ¶ 47. In deciding which product to purchase, Miller reviewed the product packaging to satisfy himself that he was buying white chocolate. Id. ¶ 48. The next day, Miller tasted the baking chips and thought that they did not taste like white chocolate. Id. He reviewed the ingredients list on the packaging and noticed that the white chips contained no white chocolate, cocoa, or cocoa butter. Id. ¶ 49.

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.

912 F. Supp. 2d 861 *; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174008 **; 2012 WL 6096593

SCOTT MILLER, an individual, on behalf of himself, the general public and those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GHIRARDELLI CHOCOLATE COMPANY, and DOES 1 THROUGH 50, Defendants.

Subsequent History: Dismissed by, in part Miller v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49733 (N.D. Cal., Apr. 5, 2013)

Motion to strike denied by Miller v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86417 (N.D. Cal., June 19, 2013)

Motion granted by, Without prejudice Miller v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163775 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 13, 2013)

Motion granted by, in part, Motion denied by, in part Miller v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179917 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 19, 2013)

Motion denied by, Motion granted by Miller v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179926 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 20, 2013)

Later proceeding at Miller v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141111 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 2, 2014)

Later proceeding at Miller v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20725 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 20, 2015)

CORE TERMS

chocolate, products, label, baking, alleges, chips, flavor, packaging, consumer, Premium, wafers, motion to dismiss, frappe, misrepresentations, mocha, misleading, cocoa, similarity, mix, alleged misrepresentation, cocoa butter, marketed, fraud claim, Confectionary, regulations, courts, romance language, lack standing, ingredients, Sweet

Civil Procedure, Responses, Defenses, Demurrers & Objections, Motions to Dismiss, Evidence, Burdens of Proof, Allocation, Justiciability, Standing, General Overview, Constitutional Law, Case or Controversy, Elements, Class Actions, Class Members, Antitrust & Trade Law, Consumer Protection, False Advertising, State Regulation, Injury in Fact, Deceptive & Unfair Trade Practices, Motions to Dismiss, Failure to State Claim, Deceptive Labeling & Packaging, Torts, Fraud & Misrepresentation, Actual Fraud