S.F. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co.
| Decision Date | 21 April 2014 |
| Docket Number | 13-CV-634S |
| Parties | S.F., as parent and natural guardian of S.E.F., an infant, Plaintiff, v. ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND COMPANY, CARGILL, INC., INGREDION INCORPORATED, PENFORD PRODUCTS CO., TATE & LYLE INGREDIENTS AMERICAS, LLC, and ROQUETTE AMERICA, INC., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of New York |
The Plaintiff asserts that high-fructose corn syrup is a toxic substance and that its manufacturers are liable under the tort doctrines of strict liability, negligence, and failure to warn. Both the true Plaintiff, S.E.F, and her mother, S.F., who brings this claim on her daughter's behalf, are identified only by their initials to protect the daughter's identity.1 Invoking this Court's diversity jurisdiction, Plaintiff, who was fourteen years old at the time the complaint was filed, asserts that high-fructose corn syrup, which she consumed in familiar foods like Pepsi and McDonald's hamburger buns, was a substantial factor in causing her to develop Type 2 diabetes.
All Defendants - five manufacturers of high-fructose corn syrup (commonly referred to in the industry by the initialism "HFCS") - now move to dismiss this action under FederalRule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6). They contend that Plaintiff has failed to state a plausible claim for relief. More to the point, they argue that Plaintiff cannot causally connect HFCS to the disease; that, by grouping all the manufacturers together as one unit, she cannot connect the alleged harm to any one particular defendant; and last, that federal food-additive laws preempt her claim.
In response to Defendants' motions to dismiss, Plaintiff filed required briefing and moved for leave to amend her complaint; she contends that the proffered amendments cure any deficiencies highlighted by Defendants in their motions. Defendants disagree. The proposed amendments, they argue, are futile and do not save her deficient claim.
As an initial matter, this Court will grant the motion to amend and construe the motion to dismiss against the amended complaint, which Plaintiff attached to her motion for leave to file it. The new complaint adds context and detail to her claim; it does not add new causes of action. And Defendants - in what effectively resulted in another round of briefing on the motions to dismiss - have responded to the amended complaint, eliminating the potential for any undue prejudice they may have suffered by virtue of the amended pleading. See, e.g., Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S. Ct. 227, 230, 9 L. Ed. 2d 222 (1962).
Despite this, for the reasons discussed below, the amended complaint must be dismissed.
Some facts are universally regarded as accurate. For one, as the name suggests, high-fructose corn syrup is derived from corn; though it is an over-simplification, HFCS is essentially made by exposing cornstarch to various enzymes and water. That process ultimately produces a sweet aqueous solution consisting of fructose and glucose. Fructose is often (though not always) found in slightly higher concentrations in HFCS than it is in sucrose - or simple table sugar, which has a 1:1 ratio of glucose and fructose.2 Other, less common forms of HFCS, however, can contain much more fructose than sugar. (See Am. Compl. ¶ 25.)
HFCS was first integrated into the American food supply in the 1970s. (Id. ¶ 21) Because of the syrup's lower cost, it is commonly used as a substitute for sugar in processed foods. (Id. ¶ 23.) The Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo., for example, began using HFCS instead of sugar in many of their beverage products in the 1980s. (Id. ¶ 23). There is no dispute that each defendant manufactures HFCS. There is also no dispute that fructose itself is an organic compound found naturally in a wide variety of fruits - like grapes, pears, and figs.
Other facts, this Court is aware, are vigorously contested by those in the science and nutrition communities, as well as by close observers of what has become a developingcontroversy.3 But that debate is largely immaterial to the motion before this Court because facts alleged in Plaintiff's complaint (though not labels or legal conclusions) must be accepted as true for the purposes of resolving this motion. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 668, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009); ATSI Commc'ns, Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd., 493 F.3d 87, 98 (2d Cir. 2007). This Court is not in a position to make findings of fact on the hotly debated health effects of sugar and high-fructose corn syrup. Rather, this Court summarizes the allegations here for the purposes of context and background.
To that end, Plaintiff alleges that fructose is metabolized differently than glucose - "almost entirely in the liver" - and that it can therefore lead to insulin resistence. (Am. Compl. ¶ 28.) This lack of insulin, she alleges, creates rising levels of glucose, which in turn, leads to Type 2 diabetes. High-fructose corn syrup, Plaintiff also alleges, "by-passes the insulin-driven satiety system, suppressing the degree of satiety that would normally result from a meal of glucose or sucrose." (Id. ¶ 35.) High-fructose corn syrup, in short, makes Plaintiff and others feel hungry when they should feel full. This "stimulates excessive and continued consumption." (Id. ¶ 46.) By extension, fructose is a "major cause of metabolic syndrome and Type 2 diabetes." (Id. ¶ 52.)
Plaintiff therefore alleges that her consumption of HFCS, supplied by Defendants and used in various end-products, such as popular soft drinks that "contain[] an average of 64-65% fructose" (id., ¶ 66), caused, or at least was a substantial factor in causing, the disease from which she now suffers - Type 2 diabetes.
Plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court on June 17, 2013. After the parties stipulated to an extension, Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, Cargill, Inc., Ingredion, Inc., and Tate & Lyle Ingredients Americas, LLC filed a joint motion to dismiss on August 30, 2013. Roquette America, Inc. filed a separate motion on September 13, 2013, but it largely incorporated the arguments made in the earlier motion.
Plaintiff then moved to amend her complaint on September 25, 2013. Briefing concluded on all the motions on November 15, 2013, at which time this Court took them under consideration.
Rule 12(b)(6) allows dismissal of a complaint for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Federal pleading standards are generally not stringent: Rule 8 requires only a short and plain statement of a claim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). But the plain statement must "possess enough heft to show that the pleader is entitled to relief." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1966, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007).
When determining whether a complaint states a claim, the court must construe it liberally, accept all factual allegations as true, and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. ATSI Commc'ns, 493 F.3d at 98. Legal conclusions, however, are not afforded the same presumption of truthfulness. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 ().
"To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Id. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Labels, conclusions, or a "formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Facial plausibility exists when the facts alleged allow for a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct charged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. The plausibility standard is not, however, a probability requirement: the pleading must show, not merely allege, that the pleader is entitled to relief. Id. at 678; Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Well-pleaded allegations must nudge the claim "across the line from conceivable to plausible." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
In essence Plaintiff contends that Defendants are liable for placing an unreasonably dangerous product in the stream commerce and for failing to warn of its dangerousness. To this end, she brings three causes of action: negligence (and gross negligence), strict products liability, and failure to warn.
To state any of these claims, a plaintiff must plausibly plead that her injury was a result, was a proximate cause, of the defendant's conduct. See, e.g., Voss v. Black & Decker Mfg. Co., 59 N.Y.2d 102, 107, 450 N.E.2d 204, 208 (1983). Defendants contend that Plaintiff has not adequately alleged that their HFCS - and not one of the many other factors that can lead to the development of Type 2 diabetes - plausibly caused (or was a substantial factor in causing) her disease. They therefore argue that the complaint mustbe dismissed for failure to plead proximate causation.
"Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will . . . be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 at 679. And where "well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged - but it has not shown - that the pleader is entitled to relief." Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)).
As Defendants point out, Type 2 diabetes is a multifactorial disease. It can be caused by, for example, a lack of exercise, genetics, or poor diet - or some combination of several factors. No expert opinion is required to arrive at this conclusion. See id., 556 U.S. at 679 (). Yet, even...
To continue reading
Request your trial