SJ Motion Brown v. Hain Celestial

Download SJ Motion Brown v. Hain Celestial

Post on 03-Apr-2018

212 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

<ul><li><p>7/28/2019 SJ Motion Brown v. Hain Celestial</p><p> 1/37</p><p>1</p><p>2</p><p>3</p><p>4</p><p>5</p><p>6</p><p>7</p><p>8</p><p>9</p><p>10</p><p>11</p><p>12</p><p>13</p><p>14</p><p>15</p><p>16</p><p>17</p><p>18</p><p>19</p><p>20</p><p>21</p><p>22</p><p>23</p><p>24</p><p>25</p><p>26</p><p>27</p><p>28</p><p>NOTICE OF MOTION AND MEMO OF LAW INSUPPORT OF DEF. MSJ</p><p>CV12-01862 EJD</p><p>6302738v.1</p><p>John W. Fowler (Bar No. 037463)jfowler@be-law.comBERGESON LLP303 Almaden Boulevard, Suite 500San Jose, CA 95110-2712Telephone: (408) 291-6200Facsimile: (408) 297-6000</p><p>Steven A. Zalesin (admitted pro hac vice)sazalesin@pbwt.comTravis J. Tu (admitted pro hac vice)tjtu@pbwt.comJames L. Kerwin (admitted pro hac vice)jkerwin@pbwt.comJennifer A. Dixon (admitted pro hac vice)jdixon@pbwt.comPATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB &amp; TYLER LLP1133 Avenue of the AmericasNew York, New York 10036</p><p>Telephone: (212) 336-2000Facsimile: (212) 336-2222</p><p>Attorneys for DefendantTHE HERSHEY COMPANY</p><p>UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA</p><p>LEON KHASIN, on Behalf of Himself and</p><p>All Others Similarly Situated,</p><p>plaintiff,</p><p>v.</p><p>THE HERSHEY COMPANY,</p><p>Defendant.</p><p>CASE NO. 12-cv-01862 EJD</p><p>NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTIONFOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENTAND FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER;MEMORANDUM OF POINTS ANDAUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF</p><p>Judge: Honorable Edward J. DavilaDate: July 19, 2013Time: 9:00 a.m.Room: Courtroom 4, 5th FloorTrial Date: No date set</p><p>Case5:12-cv-01862-EJD Document68 Filed06/14/13 Page1 of 34</p></li><li><p>7/28/2019 SJ Motion Brown v. Hain Celestial</p><p> 2/37</p><p>1</p><p>2</p><p>3</p><p>4</p><p>5</p><p>6</p><p>7</p><p>8</p><p>9</p><p>10</p><p>11</p><p>12</p><p>13</p><p>14</p><p>15</p><p>16</p><p>17</p><p>18</p><p>19</p><p>20</p><p>21</p><p>22</p><p>23</p><p>24</p><p>25</p><p>26</p><p>27</p><p>28</p><p>NOTICE OF MOTION AND MEMO OF LAW INSUPPORT OF DEF. MSJ</p><p>CV12-01862 EJD</p><p>6302738v.1</p><p>TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:</p><p>PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on July 19, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. or as soon thereafter as</p><p>counsel may be heard, in Courtroom 4, 5th Floor of the United States District Court, Northern</p><p>District of California, San Jose Division, located at 280 South 1st Street, San Jose, CA 95113,</p><p>before The Honorable Edward J. Davila, Defendant The Hershey Company (Hershey) will and</p><p>hereby does move this Court for partial summary judgment on claims pled in the Amended Class</p><p>Action and Representative Action Complaint (AC) of Plaintiff Leon Khasin (Khasin) [Dkt.</p><p>No. 27] and for a protective order.</p><p>Hershey brings this motion for partial summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of</p><p>Civil Procedure 56 and on the following grounds, which are discussed more fully in the attached</p><p>Memorandum of Points and Authorities: Khasin has admitted that, contrary to the allegations in</p><p>the AC, he did not actually rely on Hersheys website, advertising, or most of the disputed aspects</p><p>of Hersheys labeling. Because actual reliance is an essential element of each of Khasins claims,</p><p>Hershey is entitled to partial summary judgment as a matter of law.</p><p>In addition, Hershey brings this motion for a protective order pursuant to Federal Rule of</p><p>Civil Procedure 26 and on the following grounds, which are discussed more fully in the attached</p><p>Memorandum of Points and Authorities: Khasin should be barred from pursuing his burdensome</p><p>discovery demands relating to statements in Hersheys website, advertising and labeling that he</p><p>has conceded played no role in his purchasing decisions. Such discovery has no probative value</p><p>to any claims properly remaining in the case.</p><p>This motion is based on this Notice of Motion, the Memorandum of Points and</p><p>Authorities attached hereto, the declarations and exhibits submitted herewith, any reply papers</p><p>submitted in support of this motion, oral argument of counsel, the complete files and records in</p><p>this matter, and such additional matters as the Court may consider.</p><p>Case5:12-cv-01862-EJD Document68 Filed06/14/13 Page2 of 34</p></li><li><p>7/28/2019 SJ Motion Brown v. Hain Celestial</p><p> 3/37</p><p>1</p><p>2</p><p>3</p><p>4</p><p>5</p><p>6</p><p>7</p><p>8</p><p>9</p><p>10</p><p>11</p><p>12</p><p>13</p><p>14</p><p>15</p><p>16</p><p>17</p><p>18</p><p>19</p><p>20</p><p>21</p><p>22</p><p>23</p><p>24</p><p>25</p><p>26</p><p>27</p><p>28</p><p>NOTICE OF MOTION AND MEMO OF LAW INSUPPORT OF DEF. MSJ</p><p>CV12-01862 EJD</p><p>6302738v.1</p><p>DATED: June 14, 2013 PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB &amp; TYLER LLP</p><p>By: /s/ Steven A. ZalesinSteven A. Zalesin</p><p>1133 Avenue of the AmericasNew York, New York 10036Telephone: (212) 336-2000</p><p>John W. Fowler (Bar No. 037463)BERGESON LLP303 Almaden Boulevard, Suite 500San Jose, CA 95110-2712Telephone: (408) 291-6200Facsimile: (408) 297-6000</p><p>Attorneys for Defendant</p><p>Case5:12-cv-01862-EJD Document68 Filed06/14/13 Page3 of 34</p></li><li><p>7/28/2019 SJ Motion Brown v. Hain Celestial</p><p> 4/37</p><p>1</p><p>2</p><p>3</p><p>4</p><p>5</p><p>6</p><p>7</p><p>8</p><p>9</p><p>10</p><p>11</p><p>12</p><p>13</p><p>14</p><p>15</p><p>16</p><p>17</p><p>18</p><p>19</p><p>20</p><p>21</p><p>22</p><p>23</p><p>24</p><p>25</p><p>26</p><p>27</p><p>28</p><p>- i -</p><p>NOTICE OF MOTION AND MEMO OF LAW INSUPPORT OF DEF. MSJ</p><p>CV12-01862 EJD</p><p>6302738v.1</p><p>TABLE OF CONTENTS</p><p>Page</p><p>TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .........................................................................................................iii</p><p>STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES TO BE DECIDED.................................................................... vi</p><p>PRELIMINARY STATEMENT..................................................................................................... 1</p><p>BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 2</p><p>A. Khasins Allegations............................................................................................... 2</p><p>1. Hersheys Website and Advertising............................................................ 3</p><p>2. Hersheys Product Labeling........................................................................ 3</p><p>a. Milk Chocolate Products................................................................. 3</p><p>b. Mint Products .................................................................................. 3</p><p>c. Dark Chocolate and Cocoa Products............................................... 4</p><p>B. The Courts Motion to Dismiss Ruling................................................................... 4</p><p>C. Khasins Deposition Testimony.............................................................................. 5</p><p>D. Khasins Pursuit of His Defective Claims .............................................................. 7</p><p>ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 8</p><p>I. SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE ENTERED AS TO KHASINS</p><p>CLAIMS AGAINST STATEMENTS ON WHICH HE DID NOT RELY........................ 9</p><p>A. Actual Reliance Is a Necessary Element of Khasins Claims................................. 9</p><p>B. Khasin Did Not Actually Rely On Most of the Disputed Statements................... 10</p><p>1. Hersheys Website and Advertising.......................................................... 10</p><p>2. Hersheys Product Labeling...................................................................... 12</p><p>a. Milk Chocolate Products............................................................... 12</p><p>b. Mint Products ................................................................................ 14</p><p>c. Dark Chocolate and Cocoa Products............................................. 16</p><p>II. KHASIN CANNOT PURSUE HIS DEFECTIVE CLAIMS UNDER THE</p><p>UNLAWFUL PRONG OF THE UCL .......................................................................... 17</p><p>A. Californias UCL Requires Actual Reliance Even Under the UnlawfulProng ..................................................................................................................... 18</p><p>Case5:12-cv-01862-EJD Document68 Filed06/14/13 Page4 of 34</p></li><li><p>7/28/2019 SJ Motion Brown v. Hain Celestial</p><p> 5/37</p><p>1</p><p>2</p><p>3</p><p>4</p><p>5</p><p>6</p><p>7</p><p>8</p><p>9</p><p>10</p><p>11</p><p>12</p><p>13</p><p>14</p><p>15</p><p>16</p><p>17</p><p>18</p><p>19</p><p>20</p><p>21</p><p>22</p><p>23</p><p>24</p><p>25</p><p>26</p><p>27</p><p>28</p><p>- ii -NOTICE OF MOTION AND MEMO OF LAW IN</p><p>SUPPORT OF DEF. MSJ</p><p>CV12-01862 EJD</p><p>6302738v.1</p><p>B. Absent Proof of Actual Reliance, State-Law Claims to Enforce FDCARequirements Are Impliedly Preempted ............................................................... 20</p><p>III. HERSHEY IS ENTITLED TO A PROTECTIVE ORDER ............................................. 23</p><p>CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................. 25</p><p>Case5:12-cv-01862-EJD Document68 Filed06/14/13 Page5 of 34</p></li><li><p>7/28/2019 SJ Motion Brown v. Hain Celestial</p><p> 6/37</p><p>1</p><p>2</p><p>3</p><p>4</p><p>5</p><p>6</p><p>7</p><p>8</p><p>9</p><p>10</p><p>11</p><p>12</p><p>13</p><p>14</p><p>15</p><p>16</p><p>17</p><p>18</p><p>19</p><p>20</p><p>21</p><p>22</p><p>23</p><p>24</p><p>25</p><p>26</p><p>27</p><p>28</p><p>- iii -NOTICE OF MOTION AND MEMO OF LAW IN</p><p>SUPPORT OF DEF. MSJ</p><p>CV12-01862 EJD</p><p>6302738v.1</p><p>TABLE OF AUTHORITIES</p><p>Page(s)CASES</p><p>Alliance Mort. Co. v. Rothwell,10 Cal. 4th 1226 (1995) .......................................................................................................... 10</p><p>Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Provimi Veal Corp.,626 F. Supp. 278 (D. Mass. 1986) .......................................................................................... 21</p><p>Baghdasarian v. Amazon.com, Inc.,No. CV-05-8060-AG, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115265 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2009) .................. 11</p><p>Bailey v. Johnson,48 F.3d 965 (6th Cir. 1995)..................................................................................................... 22</p><p>Bronson v. Johnson &amp; Johnson, Inc.,No. C-12-04184-CRB, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54029 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2013) ........... 10, 12</p><p>Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs Legal Comm.,531 U.S. 341 (2001) ................................................................................................................ 21</p><p>Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,477 U.S. 317 (1986) .................................................................................................................. 9</p><p>Durell v. Sharp Healthcare,183 Cal. App. 4th 1350 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2010) .......................................................... 19, 20</p><p>Dvora v. Gen. Mills,</p><p>No. CV-11-1074-GW(PLAx), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55513 (C.D. Cal. May 16,2011) ....................................................................................................................................... 12</p><p>Fox v. Good Samaritan L.P.,801 F. Supp. 2d 883 (N.D. Cal. 2010) .................................................................................... 20</p><p>Fraker v. KFC Corp.,No. 06-CV-01284-JM (WMC), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32041 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 30,2007) ....................................................................................................................................... 21</p><p>Ginena v. Alaska Airlines, Inc.,No. 2:04-cv-01304-RCJ-CWH, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116656 (D. Nev. Oct. 6, 2011) ........ 9</p><p>Groce v. Claudat,No. 09cv01630-BTM, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69870 (S.D. Cal. May 18, 2012) .................. 25</p><p>Heckler v. Chaney,470 U.S. 821 (1985) ................................................................................................................ 22</p><p>Herrington v. Johnson &amp; Johnson Consumer Co.,2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90505 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2010)........................................................ 10</p><p>Case5:12-cv-01862-EJD Document68 Filed06/14/13 Page6 of 34</p></li><li><p>7/28/2019 SJ Motion Brown v. Hain Celestial</p><p> 7/37</p><p>1</p><p>2</p><p>3</p><p>4</p><p>5</p><p>6</p><p>7</p><p>8</p><p>9</p><p>10</p><p>11</p><p>12</p><p>13</p><p>14</p><p>15</p><p>16</p><p>17</p><p>18</p><p>19</p><p>20</p><p>21</p><p>22</p><p>23</p><p>24</p><p>25</p><p>26</p><p>27</p><p>28</p><p>- iv -NOTICE OF MOTION AND MEMO OF LAW IN</p><p>SUPPORT OF DEF. MSJ</p><p>CV12-01862 EJD</p><p>6302738v.1</p><p>Hillman v. Maretta,No. 11-1221, 2013 U.S. Lexis 4167 (U.S. June 3, 2013) ....................................................... 21</p><p>Hinojos v. Kohls Corp.,2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 10185 (9th Cir. May 21, 2013) ......................................................... 10</p><p>In re Actimmune Mktg. Litig.,No. C 08-02376 MHP, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90480 (N.D. Cal. Aug., 31, 2010) ............... 20</p><p>In re Epogen &amp; Aranesp Off-Label Mktg. &amp; Sales Practices Litig.,590 F. Supp. 2d 1282 (C.D. Cal. 2008)............................................................................. 22, 23</p><p>In re Farm Raised Salmon Cases,42 Cal. 4th 1077 (2008) .................................................................................................... 23, 24</p><p>In re Ferrero Litig.,794 F. Supp. 2d 1107 (S.D. Cal. 2011)................................................................................... 10</p><p>In re Sears, Roebuck &amp; Co. Tools Mktg &amp; Sales Practices Litig.,</p><p>2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89349 (N.D. Ill. 2007)....................................................................... 10</p><p>In re Tobacco II Cases,46 Cal. 4th 298 (2009) ............................................................................................................ 10</p><p>Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Ct.,51 Cal. 4th 310 (Cal. 2011) ................................................................................... 10, 19, 20, 21</p><p>Loreto v. Procter &amp; Gamble,No. 10-4274, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 3813 (6th Cir. Feb. 22, 2013) ..................................... 22</p><p>Medrazo v. Honda of N. Hollywood,205 Cal. App. 4th 1 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2012) ....................................................................... 20</p><p>People ex rel. Lockyer v. Brar,115 Cal. App. 4th 1315 (2004)................................................................................................ 19</p><p>Perez v. Nidek Co.,711 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2013)............................................................................... 21, 22, 23, 24</p><p>Pfizer, Inc. v. Superior Ct.,182 Cal. App. 4th 622 (2010).................................................................................................. 12</p><p>PhotoMedex, Inc. v. Irwin,601 F.3d 919 (9th Cir. 2010)............................................................................................. 22, 24</p><p>POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co.,679 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2012)................................................................................................. 22</p><p>Price v. Cunningham,No. 1:08-cv-00425-AWI-BAM PC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157142 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 1,2012) ....................................................................................................................................... 24</p><p>Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd. v. Superior Ct.,179 Cal. App. 4th 36 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2009) ..................................................................... 11</p><p>Case5:12-cv-01862-EJD Document68 Filed06/14/13 Page7 of 34</p></li><li><p>7/28/2019 SJ Motion Brown v. Hain Celestial</p><p> 8/37</p><p>1</p><p>2</p><p>3</p><p>4</p><p>5</p><p>6</p><p>7</p><p>8</p><p>9</p><p>10</p><p>11</p><p>12</p><p>13</p><p>14</p><p>15</p><p>16</p><p>17</p><p>18</p><p>19</p><p>20</p><p>21</p><p>22</p><p>23</p><p>24</p><p>25</p><p>26</p><p>27</p><p>28</p><p>- v -NOTICE OF MOTION AND MEMO OF LAW IN</p><p>SUPPORT OF DEF. MSJ</p><p>CV12-01862 EJD</p><p>6302738v.1</p><p>Riley v. Cordis Corp.,625 F. Supp. 2d 769 (D. Minn. 2009)..................................................................................... 23</p><p>Sateriale v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,687 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 2012)................................................................................................. 10</p><p>Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart,467 U.S. 20 (1984) .................................................................................................................... 9</p><p>Sprint PCS Assets, L.L.C. v. City of Palos Verdes Estates,583 F.3d 716 (9th Cir. 2009)..................................................................................................... 9</p><p>Summit Tech. v. High-Line Med. Instruments, Co.,933 F. Supp. 918 (C.D. Cal. 1996) ......................................................................................... 22</p><p>Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods.,406 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 2005)............................................................................................... 9, 24</p><p>Travers v. Shalala,</p><p>20 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 1994)............................</p></li></ul>