Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Chuang v. Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc.

United States District Court, C.D. California

June 7, 2017

Jonathan Chuang
v.
Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc.,

          Present: The Honorable MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, U.S. District Judge

          CIVIL MINUTES-GENERAL

         Proceedings (In Chambers): ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND [27]

         Before the Court is Plaintiff Jonathan Chuang's Motion to Remand (the “Motion”), filed April 7, 2017. (Docket No. 27). Defendants Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc., Mott's LLP, and General Mills, Inc. (collectively, “Mott's”) filed their Opposition on May 1, 2017. (Docket No. 28). On May 12, 2017, Plaintiff replied. (Docket No. 35). The Court has reviewed and considered the papers submitted on the Motion and held a hearing on June 5, 2017.

         The Motion is DENIED. The Court has jurisdiction over each of Plaintiff's claims, and thus remand is inappropriate.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff filed this putative class action in Los Angeles County Superior Court on February 6, 2017, alleging that Mott's misrepresented the fruit content and nutritional qualities of Mott's brand fruit snacks. (Notice of Removal (Docket No. 1), Ex. 1 (“Complaint”) (Docket No. 1-1)). On March 8, 2017, Mott's removed the action to this Court under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”). (Notice of Removal at 3). Plaintiff now seeks to remand any claims for which the Court concludes that Plaintiff lacks Article III standing. (Mot. at 6).

         II. DISCUSSION

         Under CAFA, the Court has “original jurisdiction of any civil action in which the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5, 000, 000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is a class action in which” there is minimal diversity. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). The parties do not contest that the removed action meets either of CAFA's basic requirements.

         Rather, Plaintiff contends that the Court may conclude at some future date that Plaintiff lacks standing, under Article III of the Constitution, to request injunctive relief for his false advertising claims. (Mot. at 6). Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks a remand of the entire action to the Superior Court; barring that, Plaintiff seeks a partial remand of those claims over which the Court lacks jurisdiction. (Id. at 6-7).

         To establish Article III standing, “a plaintiff must show (1) [she] has suffered an ‘injury in fact' that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC) Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81 (2000). “Standing exists if at least one named plaintiff meets the requirements.” Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d 970, 978 (9th Cir. 2011).

         In the Ninth Circuit, courts are split as to whether plaintiffs in false advertising actions lack standing to pursue injunctive relief. See Spann v. J.C. Penney Corp., No. SA CV 12-0215 FMO, 2015 WL 1526559, at *11 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2015) (describing the split). “In some cases, courts have denied standing to seek an injunction for consumers who have been deceived by false advertising based on the notion that the consumer's knowledge makes it unlikely that they will be deceived again, ” whereas other “courts have found standing because it would prevent federal courts from enjoining false advertising under California's consumer protection laws . . . .” Id. at *11-12.

         Plaintiff contends that the action should be remanded because this Court might conclude that Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue injunctive relief. In a sense, Plaintiff's argument puts the cart before the horse: the Court has not yet determined whether Plaintiff has standing to pursue injunctive relief, and thus Plaintiff has no basis from which to contend that any claim should be remanded for lack of jurisdiction.

         Even assuming that the Court would agree that Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue his request for injunctive relief, however, remand would be inappropriate. In Lee v. American National Insurance Co., 260 F.3d 997 (9th Cir. 2001), the Ninth Circuit explained that “the presence of at least some claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction is sufficient to allow removal of an entire case, even if others of the claims alleged are beyond the district court's power to decide.” Id. at 1002-03. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's refusal to remand an action over which the court had subject matter jurisdiction over at least some of the claims. Id. at 1007. Here, the Court has jurisdiction at least over Plaintiff's request for damages. Plaintiff's request that the Court remand the action in its entirety because the Court might conclude, but has not yet concluded, that Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue an injunction is precluded under Lee.

         Furthermore, the Court may not remand only the request for injunctive relief. The Court has considered this very issue in a similar case: Cabral v. Supple, LLC, No. EDCV-12-00085-MWF(OPx), 2016 WL 1180143 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2016) (slip op.). In Cabral, as here, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant's advertisements mislead consumers and sought a partial remand under the theory that she may have been foreclosed from seeking injunctive relief in federal court. Id. at *1-2. The Court determined that the plaintiff was not entitled even to a partial remand because, in part, “Plaintiff is seeking not to remand a claim but to remand a specific remedy” and “[n]either the text of 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) [statute outlining procedure for remand] nor the policies underlying CAFA support such ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.