Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
September 25, 2018, Decided; September 25, 2018, Filed
Case No. 13-cv-03482-SI
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; AND ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO SAN FRANCISCO SUPERIOR COURT
RE: DKT. NO. 122
Plaintiff Mohammed Rahman has filed a motion for reconsideration of this Court's October 14, 2014 order, in light of the Ninth Circuit's holding in Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 873 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2017), amended on denial of reh'g, 889 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2018). Dkt. No. 122, Mot. at 6-9; see also Dkt. No. 83, Order at 7-11. Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the portion of the Order that determined plaintiff lacked Article III standing to pursue injunctive [*2] relief. Dkt. No. 122, Mot. at 1:6-7. The motion is set for hearing on September 28, 2018. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument and VACATES the hearing. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the motion.
The facts of this case are recited at greater length in the Court's October 14, 2014 Order. See Order at 1-4. This is a consumer class action. Defendant Mott's is the manufacturer of various food products containing the statement "No Sugar Added" on their labels and/or packaging. Dkt. No. 48, Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") ¶¶ 1-2, 6. Plaintiff Mohammed Rahman alleges that the use of the statement "No Sugar Added" on Mott's 100% Apple Juice does not comply with applicable Food and Drug Administration regulations, specifically 21 C.F.R § 101.60(c)(2). Id. ¶¶ 2, 8-12. On August 12, 2014, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment of plaintiff's SAC. Dkt. No. 68. This Court granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion. Order at 16-17. As relevant here, the Court held plaintiff "lacks Article III standing for injunctive relief" because plaintiff "cannot plausibly prove that he will, in the future, rely on the 'No Sugar [*3] Added' statement to his detriment." Id. at 10.
On December 3, 2014, the Court denied plaintiff's motion for class certification. Dkt. No. 90. Plaintiff appealed the Court's decision, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision on July 5, 2017. Rahman v. Mott's LLP, 693 Fed. Appx. 578, 580 (9th Cir. 2017). The Ninth Circuit issued its mandate on October 19, 2017. Dkt. No. 116.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164620 *; 2018 WL 4585024
MOHAMMED RAHMAN, Plaintiff, v. MOTT'S LLP, Defendant.
Prior History: Rahman v. Mott's LLP, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147102 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 14, 2014)
Sugar, consumer, label, injunctive relief, Juice, reconsideration, advertising, future harm, deceived, reconsideration motion, allegations, diligence, asserts, misled