Stewart v. Riviana Foods Inc.
| Decision Date | 11 September 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 16-CV-6157 (NSR),16-CV-6157 (NSR) |
| Parties | MELISSA STEWART, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RIVIANA FOODS INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Plaintiff Melissa Stewart ("Stewart"), a resident and citizen of New York State, filed this purported class action, alleging that Defendant Riviana Foods, Inc. ("Riviana") violated Sections 349 and 350 of the New York General Business Law ("N.Y. GBL") by engaging in deceptive marketing practices. Defendant Riviana1 is a Texas corporation2 that advertises, distributes, markets, and sells its pasta products throughout New York State.3 Stewart contends that Riviana has engaged in a deceptive packaging scheme that misleads consumers into believing its healthy pasta boxes contain the same net weight of product contained in "traditional" pasta boxes. Specifically, Defendant allegedly packages only 12 ounces of healthy pasta in "the same iconic boxes" traditionally sized and priced to contain 16 ounces (i.e., one pound) of product, as to induce consumers into paying a premium for healthy pasta without realizing that they are purchasing lessproduct. Riviana now moves to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 16.) For the reasons stated below, Defendant's motion is GRANTED.
In considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court is limited to the facts alleged in the complaint and is required to accept those facts as true. See LaFaro v. N.Y. Cardiothoracic Grp., PLLC, 570 F.3d 471, 475 (2d Cir. 2009). A court may, however, consider documents attached to the complaint; statements or documents incorporated into the complaint by reference; matters of which judicial notice may be taken, such as public records; and documents that the plaintiff either possessed or knew about, and relied upon, in bringing the suit. See, e.g., Kleinman v. Elan Corp., PLC, 706 F.3d 145, 152 (2d Cir. 2013); Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 153 (2d Cir. 2002) (); accord Wechsler v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A, No. 15-CV-5907 (JMF), 2016 WL 1688012, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2016), aff'd 674 F. App'x 73 (2d Cir. 2017). Accordingly, the following facts are taken from the complaint and exhibits attached thereto or incorporated by reference therein.
Defendant Riviana Foods, Inc. is "a leading manufacturer and distributor of dry pasta in the United States," including Ronzoni®, one of the company's flagship brands. (Compl. (ECF No. 1) ¶¶ 3, 16-17.) Ronzoni pasta is "an iconic American brand," and at one point was the "number one pasta in the New York market, the largest pasta market in the United States." (Id. ¶¶ 4, 2). Ronzoni has been sold to multiple generations of consumers - for more than 100 years - and at one point was the "number one pasta in the New York market." (Id. ¶¶ 4, 18.) "Ronzoni pastas continue to have a major industry market share." (Id. ¶ 4.)
According to the Complaint, Ronzoni pasta - specifically the processed white flour variety - has been sold "for decades" in the same "iconic" boxes. (Id. ¶¶ 5, 15.) The hallmark packaging consists of "thin blue and yellow," (id. ¶ 26), "cardboard boxes of a uniform dimension"4 (id. ¶ 6), filled with "approximately 16 ounces net weight of pasta" (id. ¶¶ 6, 15). The front panel of these long rectangular boxes features a small transparent window above the net weight, which is printed in small white text on the bottom right-hand corner.
Image materials not available for display.
Plaintiff alleges that, "[t]hese Ronzoni boxes have become ubiquitous in the marketplace over the past century as competitors have marketed their own dry pasta products in substantially the same size rectangular box filled with the same volume of dry pasta." (Id. ¶ 7) (emphasis added). While Ronzoni® Thin Spaghetti (referred as "traditional pasta" or "white flour pasta") is a "hallmark product" (meaning "instantly recognizable to millions of American consumers") (id. ¶ 5), Ronzoni sells a wide variety of other white flour pasta styles besides spaghetti including, butnot limited to, large shells, penne, rotelli, and elbows. (Id. ¶ 6.) No matter the style, Ronzoni processed white flour products are "generally packaged in cardboard boxes of a uniform dimension," (id. ¶ 6), and "[t]hese packages historically had been filled with 16 ounces (net weight) of Ronzoni pasta product" (id. ¶ 23; see also Pl.'s Opp'n at 3). "Consequently, consumers have come to rely upon the 'standard size and standard volume' packaging when making purchasing decisions, particularly because the contents were and are not fully visible in the non-transparent cardboard packaging." (Id. ¶ 7.) Stated differently, as alleged by Plaintiff, consumers of Ronzoni pasta "have long been accustomed to receiving" 16 ounces of white flour pasta per box. (Id. ¶¶ 10, 12, 14; Pl.'s Opp'n at 4-5.)
Because consumers have "become more nutritionally conscious," demand for pasta "has dropped severely" in recent years. (Compl. ¶ 8.) "[F]aced with declining consumer demand for its traditional white dry pasta products, including its Ronzoni brand," Defendant (id. ¶ 10), but with "substantially less pasta than before" (id. ¶ 24). More specifically, Defendant filled iconic-sized Ronzoni boxes "with [] approximately 25% less pasta than Plaintiff and consumers had previously received" when it introduced its healthier product line. (Id. ¶ 28.) For example, Ronzoni® Smart Taste Thin Spaghetti ("Smart Taste") boxes are packaged within a box that is the same size and price5 as the Ronzoni® Thin Spaghetti No. 9. (Id. ¶ 26.) Nonetheless, Smart Taste contains only 12 ounces of pasta. Plaintiff alleges Defendant "misled [her] into believing [she]was buying the same volume of spaghetti regardless of which [variety] [she] purchased," (id. ¶ 27), because both healthy and white wheat products are sold on the same grocery store shelf. Though Plaintiff admits that the boxes containing the healthy pastas "do set forth the actual net weight on the product in small print on the bottom of the box," Plaintiff still claims that because consumers are not "carefully study[ing] the net weight number set forth in small print on the front of the box - and somehow realiz[ing] that they are no longer receiving the same quantity of Ronzoni pasta as before - consumers are being misled." (Id. ¶ 27.)
Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on behalf of herself and others similarly situated on August 3, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) Put simply, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant misleads consumers into paying a premium price for healthy pasta in violation of New York State consumer protection laws by relying "on consumers' familiarity with its traditional-sized [white flour] pasta boxes, garnered over many decades of marketing, to deceive consumers into thinking that they are purchasing the same quantity of pasta as they always have" often "at exactly the same price," when they purchase healthy pasta boxes. (Id. ¶ 14; see also ¶¶ 38, 40, 44, 46.)) Defendant moves to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety.
As noted, Defendant moves to dismiss on several grounds. First, it argues that Plaintiff's state law claims are preempted by federal law and regulations. Second, it moves, pursuant to N.Y. GBL § 349(d) (), which provides "a complete defense" whenever a challenged act or practice "complies with federal rules and regulations." (Def.'s Mem. 9.) Finally, Defendant moves pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to dismiss all counts for failure to state a claim. (Id. 10-13.) The Court will address each argument in turn.
Defendant argues first that it is entitled to dismiss all of Plaintiff's claims because Plaintiff's claims are precluded by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 ("FDCA"). Defendant reasons that because its label complies with federal law and regulations, Plaintiff's "apparent claim that the net weight statements were too small to overcome her purported 'expectation' ... that all pasta sold in similarly-sized boxes necessarily must contain the same volume of pasta" is "precluded." (Def.'s Mem. 9.)
Plaintiff contends "[t]his argument wholly overstates the scope of the Federal law pursuant to which the regulations at issue were promulgated." (Pl.'s Opp'n 9.) Moreover, Plaintiff clarifies that she is not "contend[ing] that Riviana has failed to comply with the applicable regulations governing the display of the net weight of product in its 'healthy' pastas packaging." (Id.) Instead Plaintiff argues "that [when] the packaging as a whole is misleading in a material way," (Pl.'s Opp'n 9), "it creates the impression that the customer is receiving more product than they really are," (id. at 9), which is a practice that is "not preempted by the FDCA's labeling requirements" (id. at 10). Moreover, Plaintiff relies on POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 134 S. Ct. 2228 (2014), for the proposition that a deceptive practice claim may proceed even when Defendant has complied with the FDCA's applicable labeling requirements. (Pl.'s Opp'n 10.)
Plaintiff is correct in so far as N.Y. GBL claims may survive even when manufacturers comply with the labeling laws. (See Pl.'s Opp'n 12.) It is well-established that "even if ......
To continue reading
Request your trial