Water & Sanitation Health, Inc. v. Chiquita Brands Int’l,
Inc., No. C14–10, 2014 WL 2154381 (W.D. Wash. May 22, 2014)
Chiquita buys millions of pounds of bananas per year,
including from a company named COBIGUA in Guatemala. Chiquita made a number of claims about its environmentally
safe business practices, “including, among others, that it protects water
sources by reforesting all affected natural watercourses, using solid waste
traps at all packaging stations to keep rivers and streams clean, and planting
cover crops in all drainage ditches of banana farms rather than allowing
chemical weed control.” Plaintiff WSH is
a nonprofit dedicated to providing sustainable clean-water systems to people in
impoverished villages around the world. It avoids buying food from companies that
destroy such clean-water systems.
WSH alleged that it relied on Chiquita’s representations
about its environmentally safe practice, then learned that the community in
which COBIGUA produced Chiquita bananas had chemicals contaminating the
drinking water from large scale, mono-culture banana production.
The court first dismissed WSH’s unjust enrichment claim,
which requires the defendant to know or appreciate the benefit conferred on it
by the plaintiff. Though Chiquita
allegedly received at least part of WSH’s purchase money, the court found that
WSH didn’t plausibly allege that Chiquita had an appreciation or knowledge of
the revenue from the purchase.
The other claims fared better.
A claim under Washington’s Consumer Protection Act requires
(1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) occurring in trade or commerce,
(3) that impacts the public interest, (4) that injures plaintiff in her
business or property, and (5) causation. Chiquita argued that WSH didn’t plausibly
allege injury to business or property, but allegations that WSH relied on the
advertising and wouldn’t have bought the bananas had it known the truth were
sufficient.
Similarly, the breach of express warranty claim
survived. Chiquita argued that the
complaint only speculated that the bananas WSH bought were grown in Guatemala. But the claim wasn’t limited to the
allegation that the bananas were produced in Guatemala. Rather, WSH alleged that Chiquita advertised
that it protected water sources in a number of ways across all its production. WSH’s
allegations of reliance and falsity with respect to a Guatemala site therefore
plausibly alleged a claim for breach of express warranty. So too with the negligent misrepresentation
claim.
However, the claim for injunctive relief was dismissed,
because WSH didn’t plausibly allege that legal remedies were inadequate.
No comments:
Post a Comment