Judge Matthew C. Braner, Case Number: 37-2023-00037152-CU-BT-CTL, Date: 2024-06-07 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2023-00037152-CU-BT-CTL, Date: 2024-06-07 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - June 06, 2024

06/07/2024 09:00:00 AM C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Business Tort Demurrer / Motion to Strike 37-2023-00037152-CU-BT-CTL FISHER VS INTERNATIONAL COFFEE & TEA LLC [E-FILE] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendant International Coffee & Tea, LLC's demurrer is SUSTAINED.

Preliminary Matters First, the parties' requests for judicial notice are granted.

Second, the court disagrees it was procedurally improper for Defendant to combine its demurrer and motion to strike in a single filing. Where a demurrer is interposed, as here, the Rules of Court only require that a motion to strike be given 'concurrently therewith,' and 'be noticed for hearing and heard at the same time as the demurrer.' (CRC 3.1322, subd. (b).) Defendant satisfied these requirements by noticing the motion to strike to be heard at the same time as the demurrer and reserving two motion hearings, and it complied with the requirements for the motion to strike portion of the notice by stating the 'entire paragraph, cause of action, count, or defense' sought to be stricken and quoting the portions of a paragraph sought to be stricken. (CRC 3.1322, subd. (a.) Defendant also corrected the inadvertent issue with its page numbers; the subsequent filing complies with the page limit for supporting memorandums. (CRC 3.1113, subd. (d).) Demurrer A demurrer shall be sustained if the pleading 'does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) To test the sufficiency of a cause of action, the court treats as true 'all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.' (Centinela Freeman Emergency Medical Associates v. Health Net of California, Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 994, 1010.) The court may also consider matters that have been judicially noticed. (Id.) The court shall give the complaint a 'reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context.' (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) Defendant demurs to all three causes of action in the first amended complaint on the grounds that Plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to establish standing, and that the statements at issue would not mislead a reasonable consumer, as they are non-actionable puffery. The court agrees; Plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to establish standing, and the statements alleged in the FAC are nonactionable puffery.

First, in arguing she need not meet the heightened pleading standard for fraud, nor allege she actually purchased a certain product in reliance on specifically alleged statements in order make a claim as to Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3105705 19 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: FISHER VS INTERNATIONAL COFFEE & TEA LLC [E-FILE] 37-2023-00037152-CU-BT-CTL those statements, Plaintiff mistakenly relies on caselaw that predates the enactment of Proposition 64 and its 'injury in fact' requirement for standing. After Prop 64, for claims based on purported false advertising and misrepresentations of fact to consumers (i.e., a fraud theory), the plaintiff must plead and 'demonstrate actual reliance on the allegedly deceptive or misleading statements, in accordance with well-settled principles regarding the element of reliance in ordinary fraud actions.' (Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court (2011) 51 Cal.4th 310, 326-27; see also Buckland v. Threshold Enterprises, Ltd. (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 798, 811 ['[A]ctual reliance is an element of a CLRA claim sounding in fraud.'], disapproved on other grounds in Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, supra.) Here, Plaintiff has failed to plead actual reliance on most of the statements she claims are false or misleading. Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to even plead that she purchased certain products in reliance on specified statements. The FAC falls well short in this regard. The court also disagrees Plaintiff may escape the requirement to plead actual reliance by construing her claims as against blanket statements regarding all of Defendant's products. The cases she cites, particularly Kasky v. Nike, Inc. (2002) 51 Cal.4th 310, which predates Prop 64 and concerned the issue of commercial versus noncommercial speech, do not support this assertion. To establish standing and adequately plead a claim under the UCL, FAL, or CLRA, based on alleged false or misleading advertising, Plaintiff must identify a statement of fact directly connected to a certain product, which she purchased after relying on the statement of fact, and would not have purchased had she known the stated fact was untrue or misleading. Plaintiff has failed to make such an allegation in the FAC.

Second, the statements alleged to be false or misleading in the FAC are nonactionable puffery that would not mislead a reasonable consumer. (See Salazar v. Target Corporation (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 571, 578.) In the FAC, Plaintiff contends Defendant misleads the public into 'believ[ing] that the Defendants manufacture and/or supply process actually benefits, or does not harm, the environment and ecosystem(s),' (FAC, ¶ 2), when in fact 'the products, growers, and goods are causing severe harm to the planet, the environment and ecosystems, and to Defendants' plantation workers, neighbors, and communities.' (FAC, ¶ 4.) Plaintiff alleges the following statements, among others, are misleading: - 'Coffee Bean and Tea Lead is proud of its commitment to quality and sustainability.' (FAC, ¶ 2, Exh.

A.) - 'As native Californians, we have always cared deeply about conservation and sustainability. As an organization, we have implemented many practices to reduce waste and contribute to a healthier, happier world. We believe sustainability is a chance for all of us to make better daily choices . . . For us, practicing sustainability isn't just good business – it's the right thing to do.' (FAC, ¶ 3, Exh. B.) - 'We nurture long lasting relationships with our growers. We support their Earth-friendly growing practices and social responsibility standards, particularly the conscientious way they treat their workers and families.' (FAC, ¶ 4, Exh. C.) - 'We travel to family-owned farms around the world to help the finest 1% of Arabica beans fulfill their dreams of calling California home.' (FAC, ¶ 4, Exh. C.) However, none of the above statements in these exhibits, nor the statement in numerous additional exhibits attached to the FAC, expressly convey that Defendant's business 'does not harm' the environment and ecosystems. Rather, Plaintiff infers statements like 'commitment to quality and sustainability,' 'we have always cared deeply about conservation and sustainability,' 'we have implemented many practices to reduce waste and contribute to a healthier, happier world,' 'practicing sustainability isn't just good business – it's the right thing to do,' and others, are misrepresentations because 'sustainability' has a dictionary definition that is mutually exclusive from 'harm' to the environment, in any manner, to any degree.

But more importantly, the ways in which the alleged misleading statements are phrased, using words or phrases like 'commitment,' 'always cared deeply,' 'believe,' 'nurture,' 'support,' 'help,' and 'fulfill their dreams,' renders them opinion statements rather than representations of fact. (See Gentry v. eBay, Inc.

(2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 816, 835 [the phrase 'worth its weight in gold' 'amounts to a general statement of opinion, not a positive assertion of fact.']; see also Demetriades v. Yelp, Inc. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3105705 19 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: FISHER VS INTERNATIONAL COFFEE & TEA LLC [E-FILE] 37-2023-00037152-CU-BT-CTL 294, 311 ['The common theme that seems to run through cases considering puffery in a variety of contexts is that consumer reliance will be induced by specific rather than general assertions. (Citation.) Thus, a statement that is quantifiable, that makes a claim as to the 'specific or absolute characteristics of a product,' may be an actionable statement of fact while a general, subjective claim about a product is non-actionable puffery.'], quoting Newcal Industries, Inc. v. Ikon Office Solution (9th Cir. 2008) 513 F.3d 1038, 1053.) Consequently, the statements are non-actionable puffery.

Accordingly, Defendant's demurrer is sustained with leave to amend.

Because the class allegations are based on the insufficiently pled causes of action subject to the sustaining of Defendant's demurrer, Defendant's motion to strike those class allegations is granted.

Plaintiff has leave to amend.

Plaintiff has 30 days from entry of this order to file a second amended complaint.

The minute order is the order of the court.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3105705 19