## Facts

- California Pizza Kitchen, Inc. and Nestlé USA, Inc. sold branded frozen pizzas containing partially hydrogenated vegetable oil (PHVO), a source of artificial trans fatty acids.
- The plaintiff alleged there is no safe level of artificial trans fat intake and that consumption increases risks of serious disease.
- The plaintiff alleged she purchased and consumed the pizzas and served them to her children, causing physical and emotional harm.
- The plaintiff alleged defendants knew of the health risks and that safer alternatives to PHVO were available.
- The plaintiff brought a putative consumer class action challenging the continued inclusion of PHVO in the pizzas.

## Issues

1. Whether state-law claims effectively seeking to prohibit PHVO in frozen pizzas conflicted with, or were displaced by, the federal food regulatory scheme governing trans fat use and labeling.
2. Whether sale of an FDA-regulated, labeled consumer food product can constitute a public nuisance under California law.
3. Whether allegations about health risks and available alternatives stated plausible claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law (unlawful or unfair prongs) and for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.

## Decision

- The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint.
- The action was dismissed without prejudice.
- The court held the claims, as pleaded, either conflicted with the federal regulatory framework for trans fats and labeling or failed to state a cognizable claim under California nuisance, UCL, and warranty doctrines.

## Legal Principles

- Where federal law and FDA regulations affirmatively permit an ingredient’s use subject to specified labeling requirements, state-law theories that would treat any use of that ingredient as unlawful may be barred as conflicting with the federal regulatory scheme.
- Public nuisance in California targets interferences with public rights affecting the community at large; voluntary purchase and consumption of a lawful, labeled product generally does not fit the traditional nuisance model.
- A UCL “unlawful” claim cannot be used to privately enforce the FDCA, and a UCL “unfair” claim is difficult to sustain when the challenged conduct conforms to explicit FDA-permitted ingredient and labeling rules.
- Implied merchantability requires that goods be fit for ordinary purposes, not risk-free; food that is edible and used as ordinary consumers use it is not plausibly unmerchantable solely because it contains a federally permitted ingredient associated with health risks.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed a consumer class action challenging PHVO in frozen pizzas, reasoning that the complaint sought to impose state-law liability inconsistent with FDA regulation of trans fats and, in any event, did not plausibly plead public nuisance, UCL, or implied-warranty claims based on the sale of an edible, federally regulated and labeled product.


Simpson v. California Pizza Kitchen, Inc., 989 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (S.D. Cal. 2013)