United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 oral argument pursuanttoCiv.L.R.7-1(b)and therefore previous motion todismiss. TheCourtfindsthatthe Motionissuitablefordetermination without challenges theclaims under Rule 12(b)(6)onothergroundsthatwerenotraised inDefendants’ not challengethesufficiencyofallegations that itincludesmore specificallegationsregardingMs.Held’sinvolvement. and theFTCfiled anamended complaint thatisvirtuallyidentical totheoriginalcomplaint except insufficiently pled. to theclaims againstDefendantRobynHeld,whoseinvolvement intheallegedconductwas pursuant toRule12(b)(6)oftheFederalRules 15 U.S.C.§§45(a)&52.Defendantsfiledamotion todismiss theoriginalcomplaint inthisaction with theirsaleofcertaindietarysupplements, in alleging thatDefendantshaveengagedinfalseadvertisinganddeceptivepracticesconnection remedies underSection13(b)oftheFederalTradeCommission Act(“FTCAct”),15U.S.C.§53(b), INTRODUCTION I. ______/ AL., WELLNESS ET SUPPORTNETWORK, INC., FEDERAL TRADECOMMISSION, Case3:10-cv-04879-JCS Document45Filed09/12/11Page1of6 Defendants nowbringaMotiontoDismiss FirstAmended Complaint (“Motion”)thatdoes Plaintiff FederalTradeCommission (“FTC”)brings v. Defendants. Plaintiff, See DocketNo.24.TheCourtgrantedPlaintiffleave toamend itscomplaint NORTHERN DISTRICTOFCALIFORNIA UNITED STATESDISTRICTCOURT regardingMs.Held’sinvolvement butrather, violation ofSections5(a)and12theFTCAct, Civil Procedure,whichtheCourtdeniedexceptas HELD [DocketNo.30] INC., ROBERTHELDANDROBYN WELLNESS SUPPORTNETWORK, COMPLAINT FILEDBYDEFENDANTS DISMISS FIRSTAMENDED ORDER DENYINGMOTIONTO No. C-10-04879JCS vacates theSeptember 16, 2011motion thisactionforinjunctivereliefandother United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Pack, theotheraimed atDefendants’allegedlydeceptiveclaims astotheWSN based onstandardsdevelopedinpriorFTCadjudi United StatesConstitutionbecauseDefendants’produc foods;” 2)thestandarduponwhichFTC’sclaims on thestandardsthatapplyto“dietarysupplements,” whereasDefendants’productsare“medical under Rule12(b)(6)oftheFederalRulesCivilProcedurebecause:1)FTC’sclaims arebased 52. Pack against Defendants,onebasedonDefendants’allegedlydeceptiveclaims astotheWSN BACKGROUND II. reasons statedbelow,theMotionisDENIEDwithoutprejudice. but will beconductedat1:30p.m.ratherthan 9:30a.m.,asoriginallyscheduled. hearing unchanged intheFirstAmended Complaint –theCourtdoesnotrepeatthem here. complaint weredeceptiveandmisleading –andbecause thoseallegationsremain in theoriginal are true). 12(b)(6) oftheFederalRulesCi See 28 U.S.C.§636(c). WSN advertising practicesinpromoting twoofWSN’s products,TheWSN Inc. (“WSN”), as wellasitsowners,RobertandRobynHeld,haveengagedinfalsedeceptive

Cahill v.LibertyMutualIns.Co. . Case3:10-cv-04879-JCS Document45Filed09/12/11Page2of6 ® Bothclaims areassertedunderSections 5(a) InsulinResistancePack.FirstAmended Complaint (“FAC”). .TheMotiontoDismiss In theMotion,DefendantsassertthatFirstAmended Complaint shouldbedismissed B. TheFirstAmendedComplaint A. 3 2 1 In theFirstAmended Complaint, theFTCallegesthatDefendantWellness SupportNetwork, . Because theCourtinits previous ordersetfort The Courtassumes theallegationsincomplain The partieshaveconsentedtothejurisdiction The CaseManagementConferencesetforthesamedateshallremainoncalendar vil Procedure,thecourtassumes thefacts allegedinthecomplaint , 80F.3d336,338(9thCir.1996)( 2 2 cations involvingthirdpartydietarysupplement and12oftheFTCAct,15U.S.C.§§45(a) arebasedviolatestheFirstAmendment ofthe of aUnitedStatesmagistrate judgepursuantto h thespecificstatements thattheFTC alleged ts aremedical foods;3)theFTC’sclaims are t tobetrueforthepurposesofthismotion. 1 3 on motion todismiss underRule TheFTCassertstwoclaims ® DiabeticPackandThe ® InsulinResistance ® Forthe Diabetic United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Int’l v.Ariz.Corp.Comm’n of amotion todismiss underRule12(b)(6)istotest the legalsufficiencyofcomplaint.” under Rule12(b)(6)oftheFederalRulesCivil Procedure.Fed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(6).“Thepurpose ANALYSIS III. does notrelyonthatdocument insupportofitsclaims, whicharebasedontheFTCAct. motion todismiss, theFTCdidnotsuggestthatdocument hadtheforceoflawandFTC here; and4)incitingapolicydocument initsbrieffiledoppositiontoDefendants’previous announce newprinciplesoflawduringadjudicati 1088 (9 based onapolicystatement; and5)theNinthCircuit’sdecisionin (“APA”); 4)theFTC’sstandardisanunlawfuluseofaguidancedocument totheextentthatitis attempt tocircumvent therulemaking proceduresrequiredundertheAdministrative ProceduresAct manufactures; broadapplicationof thesestandardstoDefendants constitutesanimpermissible includes healthclaims, assetforthin rule butrather,issimply enforcingestablishedstandardsrelatingtoadvertising ofproductsthat evade therulemaking proceduressetforthintheAPAbecauseitisnotattempting tomake anew FTC ActdoesnotinfringeonDefendants’commercial is noFirstAmendment righttoengageindeceptiveadvertisingandtheFTC’senforcement ofthe argument turnsonafactualquestionthatmay notbedetermined onaRule12(b)(6)motion; 2)there FTC Actdoesnotdistinguishbetweendietarysupplements andmedical foodsandinanyevent,the are notdietarysupplements, asallegedbytheFTC,butrathermedical foods,lacksmerit becausethe was adrugwhereashere,theproductsaremedical foods. deceptive advertisingundertheFTCAct,doesnotapplybecauseinthatcaseproductatissue Case3:10-cv-04879-JCS Document45Filed09/12/11Page3of6 A complaint may bedismissed forfailuretostateaclaim forwhichreliefcanbegranted LegalStandard A. The FTCcountersthat:1)Defendants’argument thattheclaims failbecausetheirproducts th Cir.1994)(“ .Rule12(b)(6) 1. Pantron I , 720F.2d578,581(9th Cir.1983).Generally,aplaintiff’sburdenatthe ”), defining“truth”and“substantiation”inconnectionwith PantronI ; furthermore, administrative agenciesarefreeto on, withonlynarrowexceptionsthatdonotapply 3 speech rights;3)theFTCisnotattempting to FTC v.PantronICorp ., 33F.3d N. Star United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Defendants’ motion istimely. raised inDefendants’previousmotion todismiss. Therefore, theCourtconsiderswhether allegations andclaims thatwereincludedintheoriginalcomplaint andthereforecouldhavebeen ruling onDefendants’firstmotion todismiss. Rath Motion isaimed attheamendments tothecomplaint made bytheFTCinresponsetoCourt’s Civ. P.8(a)(2),whichrequiresthatthepleadingsdemonstrate that“thepleaderisentitledto relief”). consistent with)”arighttorelief. Id Rather, acomplaint needonlyincludeenoughfactstostateaclaim thatis“plausibleonitsface.” at 555.However,acomplaint doesnotneeddetailedfactualallegations to survivedismissal. factual allegationsmust bedefiniteenoughto“raisearightreliefabovethespeculativelevel.” (2007) (citing sustain recoveryundersome viablelegaltheory.” must “containeitherdirectorinferentialallegationsrespectingallthematerial elements necessaryto valid theory. may bebasedonalackofcognizablelegaltheoryortheabsencefactsthatwouldsupport moving party.” “all allegationsofmaterial factastrueandconstrue(s)them inthelightsmost favorabletothenon- claim showingthatthepleaderisentitledtorelief.” Fed.R.Civ.P.8(a). pleading whichsetsforthaclaim forrelief.sha pleading stageisrelativelylight.Rule8(a)ofth . at570.Thatis,thepleadingsmust containfactualallegations“plausibly suggesting(notmerely Case3:10-cv-04879-JCS Document45Filed09/12/11Page4of6 defense orobjectionthat wasavailabletothepartybutomitted from itsearliermotion. makes amotion underthisrulemust notmake anothermotion underthisruleraising a (2) Rule12(g)oftheFederalRulesCivilProcedure providesasfollows: WhetherDefendants’MotionisTimely At theoutset,Courtnotesthatnoneofarguments advancedbyDefendants inthe B. Inrulingonamotion todismiss underRule12,thecourtanalyzescomplaint andtakes Limitation onFurther Motions Balistreri v.PacificaPoliceDep't Car Carriers,Inc.v.FordMotorCo. ParksSch.ofBus.v.Symington, Id . at1557(notingthatthisrequirement isconsistentwithFed.R. . ExceptasprovidedinRule 12(h)(2)or(3),apartythat , 901F.2d696,699(9thCir.1990).Acomplaint e FederalRulesofCivilProcedurestatesthat“[a] 51 F.3d1480,1484(9thCir.1995).Dismissal 4 ll contain.ashortandplainstatement ofthe Bell Atl.Corp.v.Twombley er, allofDefendants’arguments areaddressedto , 745F.2d1101,1106(7thCir.1984)).The , 550U.S.544,562 Id . Id . United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 the Courtdeclinestoexercise itsdiscretiontoconsidertheMotion. properly addressedatthesummary judgment stage ofthecaseand addressing deceptiveadvertisingundertheFTC Act, impermissible rulemaking undertheAPAandrenderdistinguishableleadingNinthCircuitcase because theirproductsaremedical foodsthe FTC’sclaims violatetheFirstAmendment, constitute they assertaresubjecttoalowerstandardunder the FTCAct.Defendantsfurthercontendthat supplements, astheFTCallegesinFirstAmended Complaint butinstead,medical foods,which Defendants arguethattheclaims shouldbedi on thenatureofproductstheyareadvertising,whichisafactualquestion.Inparticular, favor anexerciseofdiscretiontoconsiderDe Nat. CityBank,N.A.v.PrimeLending,Inc. Lending, Inc. 2010 WL 2854247,at*2(E.D.Wash. July19,2010)). In 2690437, at*2,n.1(N.D.Cal.,July8,2011)(citing interests ofjudicialeconomy.” with asuccessivemotion oftenexercisetheirdiscretiontoconsiderthenewarguments inthe motions todismiss thatraisearguments thatcouldhavebeenmade inapriormotion .courtsfaced or (C)attrial.”Fed.R.Civ.P.12(h)(2).While Rule“12(g)(2)technicallyprohibitssuccessive claim: “(A)inanypleadingallowedorordere Fed. R.Civ.P.12(g).Rule12(h)(2),inturn,allowsapartytoraisedefenseoffailurestate Case3:10-cv-04879-JCS Document45Filed09/12/11Page5of6 Here, incontrastto them now. Nor dothemotions resultinprejudiceorsurprise.TheCourtfindsgoodcausetoconsider Defendants areentitledtoraisethesedefenses evenif they alreadyfiled amotion todismiss. an answer.TheCourtdeclinestopassonthisopportunitynarrowtheissuesbecause able torenewtheirmotion asaRule12(c)motion forjudgment onthepleadingsafterfiling initial responseunderRule12(b).Plaintiffsdo prohibits them from raisingitbeforefilingananswerbecausetheydidnotraiseintheir Judicial economy favorsignoringthemotions' , thecourtreasonedasfollows: National CityBankv.PrimeLending,Inc. Amaretto RanchBreedables,LLCv.Ozimals,Inc. , 2010WL 2854247,at*2(E.D.Wash. July19,2010). fendants’ MotionbecauseDefendants’arguments turn smissed becausetheirproductsare notdietary d underRule7(a);(B)byamotion underRule12(c); 5 Nat. CityBank,N.A.v.PrimeLending,Inc. Pantron I technical deficiencies.Rule12(g)merely not disputethatDefendantswouldsimply be National CityBank,N.A.v.Prime . Thesearefactquestionsthat not , judicialeconomy doesnot onthepleadings.Therefore, , 2011WL , United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 ae:September 12,2011 Dated: CONCLUSION IV. Case3:10-cv-04879-JCS Document45Filed09/12/11Page6of6 IT ISSOORDERED. The MotionisDENIEDonthebasisthatituntimely underRule12(g)(2). 6

United StatesMagistrateJudge JOSEPH C.SPERO