Capaci v. Sports Research Corp.

• Decision Date: 26 March 2020
• Docket Number: Case No. CV 19-3440 FMO (FFMx)
• Citation: 445 F.Supp.3d 607
• Court: U.S. District Court — Central District of California
• Parties: Frank CAPACI, et. al., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SPORTS RESEARCH CORPORATION, Defendant.

445 F.Supp.3d 607

Frank CAPACI, et. al., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,

v.SPORTS RESEARCH CORPORATION, Defendant.

Case No. CV 19-3440 FMO (FFMx)

United States District Court, C.D. California.

Signed March 26, 2020

Lilach Halperin, Michael T. Houchin, Ronald A. Marron, Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron APLC, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiffs.

Norma V. Garcia, Jeffrey Michael Blank, Garcia Rainey Blank and Bowerbank LLP, Costa Mesa, CA, for Defendant.

ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge

Having reviewed the briefing filed with respect to defendant Sports Research Corporation's ("defendant") Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Class Action Complaint ("FAC"), (Dkt. 31, "MTD"), the court finds that oral argument is not necessary to resolve the motion, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 78 ; Local Rule 7-15; Willis v. Pac. Mar. Ass'n, 244 F.3d 675, 684 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2001), and concludes as follows.

BACKGROUND

On April 26, 2019, plaintiff Frank Capaci ("Capaci") filed this putative class action lawsuit, alleging that defendant falsely claims that its dietary supplement, "Sports Research Garcinia Cambogia," is an effective aid in "weight management" and "appetite control." (See Dkt. 1, Complaint at ¶ 1). On June 17, 2019, Capaci filed the operative First Amended Class Action Complaint, (Dkt. 16, "FAC"), which added Cynthia Ford ("Ford" and with Capaci, "plaintiffs") as a class representative.

In their FAC, plaintiffs claim that defendant misleadingly marketed a dietary supplement called "Sports Research Garcinia Cambogia" ("the Product") as an effective aid in "weight management" and "appetite control." (See Dkt. 16, FAC at ¶¶ 1 & 26). Plaintiffs filed this class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and "all purchasers of [defendant's] brand weight-loss supplement ‘Garcinia Cambogia[.]’ " (Id. at ¶ 13). Plaintiffs assert causes of action for: (1) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq. ; (2) violation of California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500, et seq. ; (3) violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750, et seq. ; (4) Breach of express warranties, Cal. Com. Code § 2313(1) ; (5) breach of implied warranties, Cal. Com. Code § 2314 ; (6) Negligent misrepresentation; (7) violation of New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. §§ 56:8-1, et seq. ; and (8) violation of the New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act ("TCCWNA"), N.J. Stat. §§ 56:12-14 to 56:12-18. (Dkt. 16, FAC at ¶¶ 90-165).

Capaci is a New Jersey resident who purchased the Product for personal use from two different GNC stores in New Jersey. (See Dkt. 16, FAC at ¶ 9). He paid approximately $25 for the Product. (See id. ). In deciding to purchase the Product, Capaci relied on defendant's "representations and warranties that the Product was safe and effective for appetite control and weight management as advertised." (Id. ). Plaintiffs allege that Capaci would not have purchased the Product "had he known the representations were false." (Id. ). He "would consider purchasing the product again," however, "if the advertising statements made on the Product labels were, in fact, truthful and represented in a manner as not to deceive consumers." (Id. ).

Ford is a California resident who purchased the Product for personal use from a Vitamin Shoppe, spending "approximately $20.00 to $25.00" on the Product. (See FAC at ¶ 10). Like Capaci, Ford claims she relied on defendant's representations that the Product was "safe and effective for appetite control and weight management" when deciding to purchase the product. (Id. ). She claims she would purchase the product again if the advertising statements on the product were truthful. (See id. ).

The Product is a dietary supplement that is "made with 65% [hydroxycitric acid (HCA) ] & coconut oil." (Dkt 16, FAC at ¶¶ 21 & 22). The left-side label of the Product states, "the active component in Garcinia Cambogia studied for its potential to suppress appetite." (Id. at ¶ 22). The label continues, "[a]long with diet and exercise, Garcinia Cambogia is a great way to support your overall weight management plan." (Id. at ¶ 20, images of label). In large yellow font, the label reads, "Supports Appetite Control[.]*" (Id. ). The asterisk directs the reader to the following message: "These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease." (Id. ). The right-side label lists three ingredients under "Supplement Facts": (1) "Garcinia Cambogia [fruit rind] extract standardized to 65% HCA[;]" (2) "Total hydroxycitric acid (HCA)[;]" and (3) "Extra Virgin Organic Coconut Oil." (Id. ). Text near the bottom of the right-side label states that "Sports Research Garcinia Cambogia should always be taken in conjunction with a healthy diet and regular exercise program." (Id. ).

Plaintiffs allege that "Defendant's [ ] ‘Appetite Control’ and ‘Weight Management’ claims convey that the Product is capable of helping consumers lose weight and will actually help consumers lose weight, by suppressing appetite." (Dkt. 16, FAC at ¶ 26). In plaintiffs' view, "the claims on the packaging of the Product convey the concrete overall message that the Product by means of its HCA, can effectively help consumers lose weight." (Id. at ¶ 27). Plaintiffs allege that this message is misleading because "the Product's only ‘active’ ingredients are incapable of providing any weight-loss benefits." (Id. at ¶ 26). Plaintiffs point to studies to support their claim about the ineffectiveness of the Product at producing weight-loss benefits. For instance, the Heymsfield study, conducted by a group of researchers at Columbia University in 1998, "found that a Garcinia extract failed to produce a significant loss of weight and fat mass beyond that observed with placebo." (Id. at ¶¶ 29 & 30). Plaintiffs also cite a "systematic review of prior meta-analyses and clinical trials of a variety of over-the-counter weight loss aids" whose results indicated that "none of the weight loss aids worked, including the Garcinia cambogia products reviewed." (Id. at ¶ 32).

Plaintiffs also reference a study indicating that HCA, another active ingredient in the Product, did "not increase total fat oxidation in vivo in endurance-trained humans." (Dkt. 16, FAC at ¶ 34). Additionally, the Mayo Clinic website indicates "[t]here is no evidence that coconut oil[, another active ingredient in the Product,] will have a beneficial effect on weight loss[.]" (Id. at ¶ 45). Plaintiffs cite several other studies that indicate that the active ingredients in the Product have no effect on weight loss or body fat percentage. (See id. at ¶¶ 36-43). Finally, plaintiffs allege that the FDA's Office of Dietary Supplements "concludes that based on research findings, that ‘Garcinia cambogia has little to no effect on weight loss.’ " (Id. at ¶ 44).

LEGAL STANDARD

A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim should be granted if plaintiff fails to proffer "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly (Twombly ), 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1974, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ; Ashcroft v. Iqbal (Iqbal ), 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) ; Cook v. Brewer, 637 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2011). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 ; Cook, 637 F.3d at 1004 ; Caviness v. Horizon Cmty. Learning Ctr., Inc., 590 F.3d 806, 812 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the plaintiff must provide "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do," Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. at 1965 ; Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 ; see also Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 974, 125 S.Ct. 1828, 161 L.Ed.2d 724 (2005) ("[T]he court is not required to accept legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from the facts alleged. Nor is the court required to accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.") (citations and internal quotation marks omitted), "[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the [complaint] need only give the defendant[s] fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007) (per curiam ) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. at 1964.

In considering whether to dismiss a complaint, the court must accept the allegations of the complaint as true, Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93-94, 127 S.Ct. at 2200 ; Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 267, 114 S.Ct. 807, 810, 127 L.Ed.2d 114 (1994) (plurality opinion), construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the pleading party, and resolve all doubts in the pleader's favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421, 89 S.Ct. 1843, 1849, 23 L.Ed.2d 404 (1969) ; Berg v. Popham, 412 F.3d 1122, 1125 (9th Cir. 2005). Dismissal for failure to state a claim can be warranted based on either a lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of factual support for a cognizable legal theory. See Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th Cir. 2008). A complaint may also be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it discloses some fact or complete defense that will necessarily defeat the claim. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 1984).

Moreover, where a...