HOLDINGS: -Where a consumer alleged that a tea company’s tea labels and website violated U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, which California incorporated into state law, and were misleading, summary judgment was inappropriate regarding reliance because a triable issue of fact existed as to whether or not the antioxidant label was a substantial factor in influencing her purchasing decision; -Although the “natural source of antioxidants” label did not include a qualifying term describing the level or quantity of antioxidants, it did imply a sufficient amount to be significant, and therefore, the court did not find as a matter of law that the statement was not a nutrient content claim under Cal. Health & Safety Code § 110670 and 21 U.S.C.S. § 321; -The tea company did not make a health claim under 21 C.F.R. § 101.14(a)(1); -The consumer had standing. Appellant was represented by a business lawyer.
Tea company’s summary judgment motion granted in part and denied in part.
HOLDINGS: -Allegations that all of a corporation’s assets had been acquired without leaving enough to pay unsecured creditors, that ownership and corporate leadership overlapped, and that the transfer of assets had a fraudulent purpose sufficiently stated a claim for a de facto merger or mere continuation theory of successor liability under California law because the complaint alleged enough detailed facts to overcome internal inconsistencies as to whether the acquisition included all assets; -A claim under the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act could not proceed because it did not specify state law; -A Lanham Act unfair competition claim under 15 U.S.C.S. § 1125(a) had to be dismissed because it was duplicative of a copyright claim asserting rights to motion pictures as set forth in 17 U.S.C.S. §§ 102(a)(6), 106 and was preempted under 17 U.S.C.S. § 301(a) by the Copyright Act.
Dismissal granted in part and denied in part.