Megan Waggener Van Meter v. Mondelēz International, Inc.; Jeremiah Pearson v. Mondelēz International, Inc.

Summary

The court denies Mondelēz International’s motion to consolidate Megan Waggener Van Meter’s consumer-protection action with Jeremiah Pearson’s related action because consolidation would prejudice Pearson by combining distinct theories of deception. The court grants in part and denies in part Mondelēz’s motion to dismiss, holding that Waggener Van Meter lacks standing to pursue claims concerning products she did not purchase, other than Oreos and Toblerone, and lacks standing to seek injunctive relief. The court otherwise concludes that she plausibly alleged deceptive representations concerning the sustainability of Mondelēz’s cocoa sourcing.

Holdings

1. Consolidation was denied because, although the two cases shared a common labeling statement and product line sufficient to satisfy Rule 42(a)'s common-question threshold, consolidation would unduly prejudice Pearson by combining materially distinct theories of deception, impairing class-certification prospects, creating conflicting damages and remedy theories, and risking abandonment of Pearson's claims.
2. Waggener Van Meter lacked Article III standing to pursue claims concerning Mondelēz products she did not purchase. Her claims were dismissed without prejudice, but the court treated Oreos as the operative product category rather than limiting her claims to the specific Gluten Free Oreo variety she purchased.
3. Waggener Van Meter lacked standing to pursue injunctive relief because her alleged willingness to repurchase products depended on Mondelēz fundamentally changing its farming practices and therefore did not establish a real and immediate threat of future injury.
4. Waggener Van Meter plausibly alleged that Oreo's sustainability representations, considered together and in context, could mislead a reasonable consumer into believing that the cocoa was fully sustainable from a people-and-planet perspective. The CLRA claim therefore survived Rule 12(b)(6) as to Oreo products.
5. The UCL and unjust-enrichment claims survived because the parties agreed they were derivative of the plausible CLRA deception claim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the related Waggener Van Meter and Pearson actions should be consolidated under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a).
2. Whether Waggener Van Meter had Article III standing to assert claims concerning Mondelēz products she did not purchase.
3. Whether Waggener Van Meter had standing to seek injunctive relief based on her alleged willingness to repurchase products if Mondelēz changed its practices.
4. Whether Waggener Van Meter plausibly alleged that Mondelēz's Cocoa Life and sustainability representations were deceptive under the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act.
5. Whether Waggener Van Meter's derivative California Unfair Competition Law and unjust-enrichment claims survived because the underlying deception claim survived.

Disposition

other