Federal Court Dismisses “All Natural” False Claims Suit Against Arizona Beverage Maker

After deciding that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring a consumer-fraud class action under the Class Action Fairness Act, a federal court in New Jersey has granted his motion to dismiss without prejudice, while denying the defendants’ cross-motion for partial summary judgment because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Robinson v. Hornell Brewing Co., No. 11-2183 (D.N.J., decided December 13, 2012).

The plaintiff had sought declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of a class
of purchasers of Arizona beverages that contain high-fructose corn syrup and
were labeled as “all natural.” He sought to certify the class under Rule 23(b)(2).
According to the court, the evidence showed that the plaintiff had no intention
of purchasing these products in the future and therefore could not show
a reasonable likelihood of future injury from the defendants’ conduct. Thus,
the court denied his motion to certify the class for lack of standing to seek
injunctive relief. Thereafter, the plaintiff sought dismissal without prejudice
arguing that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action after
denying class certification.

Agreeing with the plaintiff, the court noted that in those cases in which courts
in other circuits had ruled that denial of certification did not affect a court’s
jurisdiction, the certification denial was based on a failure to meet Rule 23’s
requirements and not, as here, a failure of Article III standing and a defect
in subject matter jurisdiction. Characterizing the matter as “the exceptional
case,” the court opined that it “never had jurisdiction from the start. This case
failed to present an Article III case or controversy because the sole plaintiff
lacked standing to seek injunctive relief. This defect in jurisdiction existed at
the time of filing this class action complaint.”