Nacarino v. Chobani, LLC

Nacarino v. Chobani, LLC

Opinion

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Docket No. 54

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Elena Nacarino ("Plaintiff") brings this putative class action against Defendant Chobani, LLC ("Defendant" or "Chobani") based in California consumer-protection law over allegedly unlawful labeling on a Chobani yogurt container. See Third Amended Complaint ("TAC"); Docket No. 51. Plaintiff now specifically alleges that the "unqualified 'Vanilla' representation on the front of the packaging, which she relied upon in making her purchase, violated FDA regulations in that the vanilla flavor of the Product is not independently derived from the vanilla plant but rather [*2]  contains other non-vanilla plant flavoring that simulates, resembles, or reinforces the characterizing vanilla flavor of the Product." Id. ¶ 7 (emphasis added). Pending before the Court is Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's third amended complaint. See Motion to Dismiss ("MTD"); Docket No. 54. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant's motion to dismiss.

II. BACKGROUND

The Court previously noted that this case was one of many recent putative class actions targeting allegedly deceptive labeling on vanilla food products that are not flavored, either exclusively or in significant part, with vanilla extract or vanilla bean. See, e.g., Clark v. Westbrae Natural, Inc., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224966, 2020 WL 7043879 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2020) ("Clark I"); Cosgrove v. Blue Diamond Growers, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 229294, 2020 WL 7211218 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2020); Zaback v. Kellogg Sales Co., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202697, 2020 WL 6381987 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2020). Notably, many plaintiffs have focused on manufacturers' use of the term "vanilla" on product labels. See, e.g., Clark I, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224966, 2020 WL 7043879; Cosgrove, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 229294, 2020 WL 7211218; Pichardo v. Only What You Need, Inc., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199791, 2020 WL 6323775 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2020).

Plaintiff's counsel filed this case on behalf of Plaintiff Elena Nacarino and a purported class of California consumers on October 23, 2020. See Complaint; Docket No. 1. After a hearing on Defendant's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, this Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's second amended complaint with leave to amend. See Order; Docket [*3]  No. 48 (August 9, 2021).

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