# Opinion

> District Court, S.D. California · December 9, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11221869

## Case

- **Full name:** Maria Corona, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. It’s A New 10, LLC
- **Court:** District Court, S.D. California
- **Decided:** December 9, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11221869

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 MARIA CORONA, individually and on Case No.: 25CV377-GPC(BLM)
behalf of all others similarly situated,
12
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
Plaintiffs,
13 DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S
v. MOTION TO DISMISS
14
[Dkt. No. 24.]
IT’S A NEW 10, LLC,
15
Defendant.
16

17
Before the Court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss the first amended complaint
18
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), 12(b)(1), and 12(b)(6). (Dkt. No. 24.)
19
Plaintiff filed an opposition. (Dkt. No. 29.) Defendant filed a reply. (Dkt. No. 30.) The
20
Court finds that the matter is appropriate for decision without oral argument pursuant to
21
Local Civ. R. 7.1(d)(1). Based on the reasoning below, the Court GRANTS in part and
22
DENIES in part Defendant’s motion to dismiss.
23
Background
24
On February 20, 2025, Plaintiff Maria Corona (“Plaintiff”) filed a putative class
25
action complaint against Defendant It’s a New 10, LLC (“Defendant”) for unlawfully
26
labeling its haircare products with “Made in the USA,” when they allegedly contain
27
undisclosed foreign-sourced ingredients and components. (Dkt. No. 1, Compl.) After
28
1 the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s motion to dismiss on July 31,
2 2025, (Dkt. No. 15), Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) on August 21,
3 2025. (Dkt. No. 18.)
4 The FAC alleges that around May 5, 2024, Plaintiff was shopping at the Marshalls
5 Store at 1834 Marron Road in Carlsbad, California looking to purchase haircare products.
6 (Id. ¶ 75.) While browsing, she noted Defendant’s Silk Express Miracle Silk Leave-In,
7 (the “Product”), with the label “Made in the USA” on its Principal Display Panel
8 (“PDP”), the most prominent and noticeable location on the product. (Id. ¶¶ 7, 39, 76.)
9 Companies typically place the most important and highest-value selling points on the
10 product’s PDP because it is the part that faces the consumer when placed on a shelf or
11 displayed on a website, allowing customers to see the claims without needing to turn the
12 product around. (Id. ¶¶ 40, 41.) Plaintiff also alleges that 44 other products, including
13 the Product, of Defendant identified in Exhibit A (“Class Products”) display the same
14 unqualified “Made in the USA” representation or similar unqualified U.S. origin claim.
15 (Id. ¶ 11.) Looking to purchase a product made in the U.S.A. and relying on the
16 unqualified “Made in the USA” representation on the Product, Plaintiff purchased the
17 Product for about $8.99 (excluding tax) for her personal use. (Id. ¶ 77.) The “Made in
18 the USA” representation was material in her decision to purchase the Product, and had
19 she known the Product was not of U.S. origin, she would not have purchased it. (Id. ¶¶
20 81, 83.)
21 On the Product, the text “MADE IN THE USA” is in capital letters and
22 distinguished with metallic text and placed underneath the size or quantity of the Product
23 and isolated from other wording. (Id. ¶¶ 42, 43.) Plaintiff claims that the “Made in the
24 USA” is in the same location on the packaging of nearly every one of Defendant’s
25 products, or in some cases, in another conspicuous location on the product label. (Id. ¶
26 44.) The “Made in the USA” is prominently visible to the consumers whether they see
27 the product on a store shelf or view it online. (Id. ¶ 45.) Despite the “Made in the USA”
28
1 claim, Plaintiff asserts that the Class Products are substantially made with foreign
2 ingredients and consumers have been misled. (Id. ¶¶ 46, 47.)
3 Plaintiff asserts that the Product she purchased contains palm oil, and hydrolyzed
4 silk which are ingredients that do not originate from or are not sourced in the United
5 States. (Id. ¶ 48.) In addition, on information and belief, the Product includes panthenol
6 and Morus alba (White Mulberry) leaf extract which are of foreign origin. (Id. ¶ 49.)
7 Marketing materials highlight these foreign sourced ingredients as “key” or “featured”
8 ingredients meaning they are the most valuable, functional components of the product to
9 consumers, which thereby render unqualified “Made in the U.S.A.” representations false
10 and misleading. (Id. ¶ 50.)
11 According to the FAC, Defendant and its reseller’s websites do not provide a full
12 ingredient list for each Class Product and do not display images of the ingredient list on
13 the back panels of the Class Products; instead, they highlight only the “key” or “featured”
14 ingredients. (Id. ¶¶ 51-53.) For instance, the Product lists hydrolyzed silk, white
15 mulberry leaf extract and palm oil as “key” ingredients and the Miracle Leave-In Product
16 lists sunflower seed extract, green tea leaf extract, silk amino acids, aloe vera and
17 panthenol as its “key” ingredients. (Id. ¶¶ 52, 53.)
18 In the Product, Plaintiff notes that “silk” is featured prominently in its name twice
19 highlighting the inclusion of silk or silk derivatives and the importance consumers place
20 on the value silk or silk derivatives when buying the Product. (Id. ¶ 54.) As such,
21 consumers would reasonably expect silk to be a key, functional ingredient, or in other
22 words, expect the Product to contain more than a negligible amount of silk “in a
23 concentration sufficient to provide the functional benefits commonly associated with
24 silk.” (Id.) Further, given the functional importance of silk, palm oil and white mulberry
25 leaf extract rather than the less expensive synthetically and mass produced chemical
26 components that make up the remainder of the Product, it is not plausible that the
27 combined value or cost of the three ingredients along with panthenol, represents less than
28 10 percent in the Product. (Id. ¶ 56.) Moreover, because panthenol, palm oil, hydrolyzed
1 silk and white mulberry leaf extract are listed as the eleventh , thirteenth, fourteenth and
2 fifteenth listed ingredients out of nineteen, they reflect more than a de minimis presence
3 in the Product. (Id. ¶ 57.) Lastly, on information and belief, many of the synthetic
4 ingredients in the Product as well as the packaging are sourced from outside the United
5 States. (Id. ¶ 58.)
6 Plaintiff also asserts that the United States has the capacity to grow, process,
7 manufacture and source silk, palm oil, mulberry leaf extract, plastic packaging and other
8 components from domestic suppliers and Defendant could have contracted with
9 manufacturers to create domestic supply chains for each of those ingredients. (Id. ¶ 59.)
10 Upon information and belief, the hydrolyzed silk used by Defendant underwent a
11 manufacturing process outside the United States because it is more economical where
12 labor costs are less expensive and regulatory requirements are less rigorous and there is a
13 need to preserve quality through conducting the hydrolysis process near the source of the
14 silk production before transport to the United States. (Id. ¶ 60.)
15 The Miracle Leave-In contains Camellia sinensis (green tea) leaf extract, and silk
16 amino acids, and neither originate in the United States. (Id. ¶ 61.) Upon information and
17 belief, the product also includes aloe vera, panthenol and sunflower seed extract which
18 are of foreign origin, including the plastic packaging used in the product. (Id.)
19 Defendant and its retail partners highlight these as “key” ingredients. (Id. ¶¶ 62, 63.)
20 Next, the Miracle Moisture Shampoo contains Euterpe oleracea (acai) fruit extract,
21 sunflower seed extract, Aspalathus linearis (rooibos) leaf extract, Morinda citrifolia
22 (noni) fruit extract, Moringa oleifera seed extract, and other ingredients which are not
23 sourced from the United States despite the unqualified “Made in the U.S.A.” label on its
24 packaging. (Id. ¶ 64.)
25
26

27
1 In her opposition, Plaintiff notes that panthenol was inadvertently listed as the “eleventh” ingredient in
28
1 Meanwhile, the Silk Express Miracle Daily Shampoo contains palm oil,
2 hydrolyzed silk, white mulberry leaf extract and sunflower seed extract; Miracle Daily
3 Conditioner contains silk amino acids and Colocasia antiquorum root extract; and
4 Miracle Blowdry Volumizer contains hydrolyzed silk, acai fruit extract, green tea extract,
5 and Camellia oleifera leaf extract. (Id. ¶ 65.)
6 Plaintiff claims that the facts as to the Class Products’ content is within the
7 exclusive knowledge, control and possession of Defendant and cannot be fully
8 ascertained without discovery. (Id. ¶ 66.) The ratio of the ingredients in the Product and
9 Class Products is exclusively within the knowledge, control and possession of Defendant
10 and without such knowledge, Plaintiff cannot calculate the relative cost contribution of
11 each component or group components to the overall product. (Id. ¶ 69.) The exact cost
12 of each individual ingredient and component used to produce the Class Products is within
13 the exclusive knowledge, control and possession of Defendant and Plaintiff has no means
14 to determine or even approximate the costs with precisions because market prices
15 available online does not reveal how much Defendant actually paid. (Id. ¶ 70.) The
16 identity of Defendant’s supplier, contract manufacturers and other agents involved in the
17 production of the Class Products are also not publicly available and unknown to Plaintiff
18 making it impossible her to plead details without discovery. (Id. ¶ 71.)
19 American consumers view products, ingredients and components made in the
20 United States as being of higher quality than their foreign counterparts. (Id. ¶ 73.) As
21 such, Defendant either charges a premium for its products compared to its competitors or
22 gains a competitive advantage by having its products chosen over others based on false,
23 unqualified “Made in the USA” claims. (Id. ¶ 74.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s
24 “Made in the USA” representation on its products is false, unqualified, unfair and
25 deceptive. (Id. ¶ 63.)
26 As such, Plaintiff alleges violations of (1) California’s Consumer Legal Remedies
27 Act (“CLRA”), Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq.; (2) California’s Unfair Competition Law
28 (“UCL”), Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.; (3) California’s False Advertising Law
1 (“FAL”), Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, et seq.; (4) breach of express warranty; (5) unjust
2 enrichment; (6) negligent misrepresentation; and (7) intentional misrepresentation. (Id.
3 ¶¶ 109-221.)
4 Defendant moves to dismiss all claims in the first amended complaint for failing to
5 state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), 9(b) and for lack of subject
6 matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), and the motion is fully briefed. (Dkt. Nos. 24,
7 25, 30.)
8 Legal Standards
9 A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)
10 Rule 12(b)(1) permits challenges to a court’s subject matter jurisdiction and
11 includes a challenge for lack of Article III standing. See Chandler v. State Farm Mut.
12 Auto. Inc. Co., 598 F.3d 1115, 1122 (9th Cir. 2010). Article III, Section 2 the United
13 States Constitution requires that a plaintiff have standing to bring a claim. See Lujan v.
14 Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). Article III standing requires that a
15 plaintiff show that he has (1) “suffered an injury in fact” that is “concrete and
16 particularized” and “actual or imminent” (2) “that is fairly traceable to the challenged
17 conduct of the defendant,” and (3) “that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial
18 decision.” Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 338-39 (2016) (citing Lujan v.
19 Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)). The plaintiff has the burden to allege
20 Article III standing. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561. A “quintessential injury-in-fact” occurs
21 when the “plaintiffs spent money that, absent defendants’ actions, they would not have
22 spent.” Maya v. Centex Corp., 658 F.3d 1060, 1069 (9th Cir. 2011). Additionally, if
23 plaintiffs “state that they would not have purchased [a product] had there been proper
24 disclosure” of relevant facts, that is sufficient to plead causation. Id. at 1070.
25 B. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
26 Rule 12(b)(6) allows a court to dismiss a complaint for “failure to state a claim
27 upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Dismissal under Rule
28 12(b)(6) is appropriate where the complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory or sufficient
1 facts to support a cognizable legal theory. Election Integrity Project Cal., Inc. v. Weber,
2 113 F.4th 1072, 1081 (9th Cir. 2024) (citing Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th
3 Cir. 2001)). To survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint must contain a “short and
4 plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2),
5 backed by sufficient facts that make the claim “plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
6 556 U.S. 662, 678, (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 547
7 (2007)). Plausibility requires “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
8 unlawfully.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Rather, it requires enough factual content for the
9 court to “draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
10 alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). In reviewing the plausibility of a
11 complaint, courts must “accept factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe
12 them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Dent v. Nat'l Football
13 League, 968 F.3d 1126, 1130 (9th Cir. 2020). But courts do not accept as true allegations
14 that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.
15 Coronavirus Rep. v. Apple, Inc., 85 F.4th 948, 954 (9th Cir. 2023). Ultimately, the court
16 must be able to “draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
17 misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 663.
18 C. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)
19 Claims sounding in fraud are subject to the heightened pleading requirements of
20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), which requires a plaintiff bringing such a claim to
21 “state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
22 9(b). To properly plead fraud with particularity under Rule 9(b), “a pleading must
23 identify the who, what, when, where, and how of the misconduct charged.” Davidson v.
24 Kimberly-Clark Corp., 889 F.3d 956, 964 (9th Cir. 2018). In addition, the allegation
25 “must set forth what is false or misleading about a statement, and why it is false.” Id.
26 The purpose of Rule 9(b) is to require that allegations be “specific enough to give
27 defendants notice of the particular misconduct which is alleged … so that they can defend
28
1 against the charge and not just deny that they have done anything wrong.” Whiteside v.
2 Kimberly Clark Corp., 108 F.4th 771, 785 (9th Cir. 2024).
3 Discussion
4 A. California Safe Harbor Rule Analysis
5 Defendant moves to dismiss all causes of action arguing that the FAC fails to
6 allege facts that the Products fall outside California’s safe harbor rules because Plaintiff
7 has not specifically articulated “any percentage of the foreign sourced ingredients.” (Dkt.
8 No. 24-1 at 14-17.2) In response, Plaintiff claims she has plausibly alleged that the
9 foreign ingredients in the Products are more than 10% of the final wholesale value of the
10 merchandise under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17533.7(b) & (c). (Dkt. No. 29 at 16-20.)
11 As discussed in the next section, the Court finds that Plaintiff only has standing to sue
12 over the Product that she purchased and not the remaining unpurchased Class Products.
13 Accordingly, the Court will solely analyze the Product under the Safe Harbor Rule.
14 Under the California Made in the U.S.A. (“CA MUSA”) Rule,
15 It is unlawful … to sell or offer for sale in this state any merchandise on
which merchandise or on its container there appears the words “Made in
16
U.S.A.,” “Made in America,” “U.S.A.,” or similar words if the merchandise
17 or any article, unit, or part thereof, has been entirely or substantially made,
manufactured, or produced outside of the United States.
18

19 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17533.7(a). Two amendments to the CA MUSA Rule, Cal.
20 Bus. & Prof. Code sections 17533.7(b) and (c), (“CA safe harbor provisions”), effective
21 2016, provide exceptions making a “Made in the USA” label lawful. It provides that,
22 (b) This section shall not apply to merchandise made, manufactured, or
produced in the United States that has one or more articles, units, or parts
23
from outside of the United States, if all of the articles, units, or parts of the
24 merchandise obtained from outside the United States constitute not more
than 5 percent of the final wholesale value of the manufactured product.
25

26
27
28
1 (c)(1) This section shall not apply to merchandise made, manufactured, or
produced in the United States that has one or more articles, units, or parts
2
from outside of the United States, if both of the following apply:
3 (A) The manufacturer of the merchandise shows that it can neither produce
the article, unit, or part within the United States nor obtain the article, unit,
4
or part of the merchandise from a domestic source.
5 (B) All of the articles, units, or parts of the merchandise obtained from
outside the United States constitute not more than 10 percent of the final
6
wholesale value of the manufactured product.
7
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17533.7(b), (c).
8
In its prior order, the Court concluded that the complaint failed to allege any
9
percentage of the foreign sourced ingredients or any allegations that the combination of
10
foreign ingredients are more than 10% of the final wholesale value of the Product, and as
11
such, failed to state a claim under Rule 8, and necessarily under Rule 9(b). (Dkt. No. 15
12
at 15-16.) Plaintiff amended the complaint to cure this deficiency.
13
As an initial matter, the safe harbor provisions do not require that a plaintiff assert
14
the exact percentage of any foreign sourced materials. See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§
15
17533.7(b), (c); see Daldalian v. Pepsico., Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-01491-WLH-E2025
16
WL 2778326, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 3, 2025) (“The Court does not expect Plaintiff to have
17
proven [the amount of foreign sourced ingredients] with mathematical precision; rather,
18
Plaintiff needed only to set forth some set of facts, other than the Class Products being
19
“substantially” and “materially composed of indispensable foreign ingredients”);
20
Claiborne v. Church & Dwight Co., Inc., Case No.: 3:17-cv-00746-L-JLB, 2017 WL
21
5256752, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2017) (plaintiff “need only plausibly allege that the
22
foreign wholesale value is greater than ten percent. There is no requirement that a
23
plaintiff allege exactly how much more than ten percent of the total wholesale value
24
stems from abroad.”). Plaintiff does not dispute that she has not alleged the specific
25
percentage of foreign sourced ingredients; in fact, she maintains she cannot state exactly
26
27
28
1 what percentage of the final wholesale value comes from outside the U.S. since that
2 information is solely within the knowledge, control and possession of Defendant and its
3 agent. (Dkt. No. 18, FAC ¶¶ 69-71.) Rather than a specific percentage, the Court must
4 determine whether Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that the foreign sourced ingredients in
5 the Product constitute more than 10% of the final wholesale value.
6 The FAC alleges the Product contains four ingredients, palm oil, hydrolyzed silk,
7 panthenol and white mulberry leaf extract, and they do not originate from or are not
8 sourced in the United States, (Id. ¶¶ 48, 49.) In marketing the Product, Defendant
9 highlights these foreign sourced ingredients as “key” or “featured” meaning they are the
10 most valuable, functional components of the product to consumers. (Id. ¶¶ 50-53.)
11 Further, because “silk” is featured twice in the Product’s name, Silk Express Miracle Silk
12 Leave-In, it highlights the inclusion of silk or silk derivatives and it would be reasonable
13 to expect the Product to contain more than a negligible amount of silk “in a concentration
14 sufficient to provide the functional benefits commonly associated with silk.” (Id. ¶ 54.)
15 Given the functional importance of silk, palm oil and white mulberry leaf extract rather
16 than the less expensive synthetically and mass produced chemical components that make
17 up the remainder of the Product, Plaintiff claims it is not plausible that the combined
18 value or cost of the three ingredients along with panthenol, represents less than 10
19 percent in the Product. (Id. ¶ 56.) Moreover, because panthenol, palm oil, hydrolyzed
20 silk and white mulberry leaf extract are listed as the eleventh4, thirteenth, fourteenth and
21
22
23 3 Plaintiff argues that “wholesale value” focuses on “value”, not “cost.” (Dkt. No. 29 at 16 (citing
McCoy v. McCormick & Co., Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-00231 JLT SAB, 2025 WL 2315457, at *4 n. 5
24
(E.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2025).) Defendant disputes Plaintiff’s characterization. (Dkt. No. 30 at 7-8.) The
25 court in McCoy addressed “value” and “cost” in the context of a conflict preemption analysis. The
Court has not found a case that has meaningfully addressed the meaning of “final wholesale value”
26 under California’s safe harbor rules. Notwithstanding the potential difference in the meaning of
“wholesale value”, the key to the Court’s analysis, as discussed below, is assessing the ratio of the
27 foreign sourced ingredients in relation to the non-foreign ingredients in the Product.
4 In her opposition, Plaintiff notes that panthenol was inadvertently listed as the “eleventh” ingredient in
28
1 fifteenth ingredients out of nineteen, they reflect more than a de minimis presence in the
2 Product. (Id. ¶ 57.) Finally, on information and belief, many of the synthetic ingredients
3 in the Product as well as the packaging are sourced from outside the United States.5 (Id.
4 ¶ 58.)
5 As a starting point, conclusory allegations that the foreign ingredients constitute a
6 substantial or material component of a product are not sufficient to state a “Made in the
7 U.S.A.” misrepresentation claim. See Daldalian v. Pepsico., Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-
8 01491-WLH-E2025 WL 2778326, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 3, 2025) (claims that the class
9 products are “substantially” and “materially composed of indispensable foreign
10 ingredients” are insufficient to allege that they fall outside the 5% safe harbor limit of
11 Section 17533.7); Hood v. Handi-Foil Corp., Case No. 24-cv-02373-RS, 2024 WL
12 4008711, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2024) (general claim that “parts of Defendants'
13 products obtained from outside the United States constitute more than 10 percent of the
14 final wholesale value of the manufactured products are insufficient and vague” and
15 formulaic recitation of the elements); Hass v Citizens of Humanity, LLC, Case No.: 14-
16 CV-1404 JLS (WVG), 2016 WL 7097870, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2016) (dismissing as
17 insufficient allegation that Defendant's products “are substantially made, manufactured,
18 or produced from component parts that are manufactured outside of the United States”)
19 (emphasis in original). Here, Plaintiff has alleged more than a conclusory formulaic
20 recitation of the elements of her claim.
21
22

23
5 Defendant challenges Plaintiff’s allegations based on information and belief arguing they cannot
24
satisfy Rule 9(b). However, allegations based on information and belief may be sufficient to satisfy
25 Rule 9(b) as long as there is a factual basis for the belief. Neubronner v. Milken, 6 F.3d 666, 672 (9th
Cir. 1993). Further, Rule 9(b)’s standard “may be relaxed with respect to matters within the opposing
26 party's knowledge.” Id. Here, Plaintiff has sufficiently provided factual bases by providing citations in
the FAC to support her belief, (Dkt. No. 18, FAC ¶ 49 n. 7, 8; id. ¶ 58 n. 11), and has alleged that
27 information about the Product’s contents, such as the ratio of each ingredient and cost of each
ingredient, are within the exclusive knowledge, control and possession of Defendant. (Id. ¶¶ 66, 69-71.)
28
1 Where a plaintiff has alleged more than conclusory allegations, two cases provide
2 guidance. In Flodin, despite two attempts at amending the complaint, the Court granted
3 dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims based on the defendant’s “Made in the USA”
4 representation where the plaintiff alleged that the one foreign ingredient, avocado, was a
5 “key” or “top” ingredient in the product at issue and avocado was listed as the seventh
6 ingredient out of 35-40 ingredients listed. See Flodin v. Central Garden & Pet Co., Case
7 No. 21-cv-01631-JST, 2023 WL 4686016, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 21, 2023). The district
8 court concluded that Plaintiff may have alleged a possibility that avocado represents more
9 than 5% of the final wholesale value but not plausibility. Id.
10 In Claiborne, the plaintiff brought suit against a condom manufacturer alleging the
11 labeling of its product with “Made in the U.S.A” was false because natural latex is made
12 outside the United States. Claiborne v. Church & Dwight Co., Inc., Case No.: 3:17-cv-
13 00746-L-JLB, 2017 WL 5256752, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2017). According to the
14 plaintiff’s allegations, the main ingredient in the product was natural latex. Id. Plaintiff
15 alleged the United States’ production of natural latex was minimal and 90% of the global
16 supply came from Southeast Asia. Id. Because the U.S. was the world’s leading
17 consumer of natural latex, condom manufacturers, who use natural latex, depended on
18 foreign imports. Id. The district court concluded these allegations plausibly stated that
19 the foreign wholesale percentage value of the product was greater than 10 percent and
20 denied the motion to dismiss. Id. at *2. Both courts in Flodin and Claiborne considered
21 the ratio or concentration of the foreign ingredients in relation to the non-foreign
22 ingredients.
23 In this case, Plaintiff provides a number of specific allegations that support her
24 “Made in the U.S.A.” fraudulent misrepresentation claim. In contrast to the single
25 ingredient, avocado, which was seventh out of 35-40 ingredients in Flodin, Plaintiff
26 alleges that the Product includes four foreign ingredients listed as the eleventh, thirteenth,
27 fourteenth and fifteenth ingredients out of nineteen ingredients, and together, they
28 represent more than a de minimis amount in the Product. (Dkt. No. 18, FAC ¶ 57.)
1 Based on the number of ingredients and the placement of the foreign ingredients on the
2 ingredient list, Plaintiff conducts an estimated calculation of the ingredient proportions to
3 conclude that the four alleged foreign ingredients amount to more than 20% of the
4 ingredients in the Product. (Dkt. No. 29 at 18 n.4.) Additional allegations to support
5 Plaintiff’s claim include showing, with citations to websites, that palm oil and hydrolyzed
6 silk are not currently produced in the U.S. and where, outside the U.S., palm oil and
7 hydrolyzed silk are primarily produced, (Dkt. No. 18, FAC ¶ 47 n. 5, 6), and showing
8 why White Mulberry leaf extract is likely not sourced in the U.S. and where it and
9 panthenol are potentially cultivated, (id. ¶ 49 n. 7, 8). See Alaei v. Rockstar, Inc., 224 F.
10 Supp. 3d 992, 1000 (S.D. Cal. 2016) (Rule 9(b) not satisfied where plaintiff did not
11 specify “where the allegedly foreign-sourced ingredients were made and what percentage
12 of Defendants' products are comprised of foreign-sourced ingredients.”). Further support
13 includes Defendant’s marketing of the Product highlighting solely the foreign ingredients,
14 on its and its retailers websites, and the use of the word “silk” twice in the Product’s
15 name. These allegations, in combination, and viewing them in the light most favorable to
16 Plaintiff, create a reasonable inference that the four foreign ingredients in the Product
17 constitute “more than 10% of the final wholesale value of the manufactured product.”
18 See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17533.78(c).
19 The Court also concludes that Rule 9(b) has been satisfied as Plaintiff has
20 identified the who, Defendant; the what, the Product; the when, four years prior to the
21 filing of this action; the where, Product sold in California; and how, by making false and
22 misleading “Made in the U.S.A.” claims. Plaintiff also specifically alleges that the
23 “Made in the U.S.A.” claim is false and misleading because the Product fails to disclose
24 the presence of foreign ingredients and/or components in the Product. See Cafasso, U.S.
25 ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2011) (in addition
26 to the who, what, when, where and how, Rule 9(b) also requires a plaintiff to plead “what
27 is false or misleading about the [purportedly fraudulent] statement, and why it is false.”).
28
1 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to dismiss all causes of
2 action as they are all based on the false and misleading “Made in the U.S.A.” claim
3 relating to the sale of the Product.
4 B. Rule 12(b)(1) – Article III Standing
5 Defendant moves to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter
6 jurisdiction because Plaintiff has failed to plead that she has standing over products she
7 did not purchase because she has not suffered an injury in fact that is concrete and did not
8 rely on them to her detriment. (Dkt. No. 24-1 at 23-26.) Plaintiff responds that the Class
9 Products are substantially similar to the Product she purchased arguing they are all hair
10 care products with foreign ingredients and uniformly have the “Made in the U.S.A” label.
11 (Dkt. No. 29 at 27-29.)
12 As discussed above, to have standing under Article III of the Constitution, “[t]he
13 plaintiff must have (1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the
14 challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable
15 judicial decision.” Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 338 (2016) (citing Lujan v.
16 Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992)). Plaintiff, as the party asserting
17 federal jurisdiction, bears the burden of establishing Article III standing. See Lujan, 504
18 U.S. at 561.
19 Absent controlling authority, the prevailing view among district courts in the Ninth
20 Circuit is to allow class action plaintiffs to have constitutional standing to bring claims
21 for products they did not purchase “so long as the products and alleged
22 misrepresentations are substantially similar.” Miller v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co., 912 F.
23 Supp. 2d 861, 869 (N.D. Cal. 2012); see also Brown v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc., 913 F.
24 Supp. 2d 881, 890 (N.D. Cal. 2012). If the products are sufficiently similar, “any
25 concerns regarding material differences in the products can be addressed at the class
26 certification stage.” Anderson v. Jamba Juice Co., 888 F. Supp. 2d 1000, 1006 (N.D.
27 Cal. 2012). However, “[w]here the alleged misrepresentations or accused products are
28
1 dissimilar, courts tend to dismiss claims to the extent they are based on products not
2 purchased.” Miller, 912 F. Supp. 2d at 870.
3 In making this determination, courts consider “whether the challenged products are
4 of the same kind, whether they are comprised of largely the same ingredients, and
5 whether each of the challenged products bears the same alleged mislabeling.” Wilson v.
6 Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., 961 F. Supp. 2d 1134, 1141 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (citing Astiana v.
7 Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream, Inc., No. C 11–2910 EMC, 2012 WL 2990766, at *11 (N.D.
8 Cal. July 20, 2012)); Figy v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., 67 F. Supp. 3d 1075, 1083 (N.D. Cal.
9 2014) (same).
10 Here, both parties apply the prevailing view. Defendant argues that the Class
11 Products in Exhibit A have vastly different ingredients, despite some overlap, and vary in
12 the types of hair products. (Dkt. No. 24-1 at 25.) Plaintiff maintains she has standing to
13 assert claims for substantially similar unpurchased products because the “Made in the
14 U.S.A.” label is the same on all the Class Products and to the extent the court must
15 consider ingredients and kind, Plaintiff contends that even though there may be different
16 ingredients, they are all allegedly foreign, and are all haircare products. (Dkt. No. 29 at
17 28-29.)
18 According to the FAC, Plaintiff purchased Silk Express Miracle Silk Leave-In
19 product, which contains palm oil, hydrolyzed silk, panthenol and Morus Alba (White
20 Mulberry) leaf extract, and all are alleged to be of foreign origin. (Dkt. No. 18, FAC ¶¶
21 7, 48, 49.) The Court concluded that Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that the foreign
22 ingredients in the Product fall outside of California’s safe harbor rules because she has
23 alleged that the foreign ingredients comprise “more than 10% of the final wholesale value
24 of the manufactured product.”
25 The FAC also alleges five other products, that Plaintiff did not purchase, make an
26 unqualified “Made in the USA” on their labels: (1) Miracle Leave-In, (2) Miracle
27 Moisture Shampoo, (3) Silk Express Miracle Daily Shampoo, (4) Miracle Daily
28 Conditioner, and (5) Miracle Blowdry Volumizer because they contain ingredients not
1 sourced from the United States. (Id. ¶¶ 61, 64, 65.) Plaintiff also includes a list of an
2 additional 38 products6, without differentiation, showing each product’s ingredient list
3 with foreign ingredients in bold and likely foreign ingredients in italics and citations as to
4 where each foreign ingredient is cultivated, sourced, produced or grown. (Dkt. No. 18-1,
5 Compl., Ex. A.) Furthermore, the Class Products include “All products sold during the
6 Class Period that have since been discontinued or renamed, and are therefore not
7 specifically identified herein, are nonetheless subject to this First Amended Complaint
8 and shall be included in the Class Products.” (Id., Ex. A at 2 (emphasis in original).)
9 The FAC alleges the Class Products all display the same unqualified ‘Made in the USA’
10 representation or a similar unqualified U.S. origin claim. (Dkt. No. 18, FAC ¶ 11.)
11 First, while Plaintiff purchased a leave-in product, the Product and many of the
12 listed Class Products are not of the same kind. Specifically, Exhibit A includes
13 shampoos, conditioners, styling gels, leave-in products, hair masks, finishing sprays, a
14 curl cream, a gelled oil, a shave cream, a shine spray, a styling oil, a styling serum, a
15 styling balm and a styling mousse. (Dkt. No. 18-1, FAC, Ex. A at 2-3.) Only the ten
16 leave-in products can be said to be of the same kind.
17 Next, none of the Product and Class Products consist of the same ingredients
18 though some Class Products contain one or more of the same foreign ingredients as in the
19 Product but in different ratios. Each Class Product contains a varying number of
20 different ingredients, foreign and non-foreign. Some Class Products have as little as
21 eleven ingredients while others have up to fifty-six ingredients. As noted above, courts
22 consider the ratio or concentration of the foreign ingredients relative to the non-foreign
23 ingredients and Plaintiff has not shown that each Class Product’s concentration of foreign
24 ingredients is substantially similar to the Product.7
25

26
6 Exhibit A includes 44 products which include the Product and the five named products in the FAC.
27 7 While the ratio or concentration can likely be calculated based on the ingredient list in Exhibit A,
Plaintiff has not done the calculation and the Court declines to conduct the work for her. See Wilson,
28
1 Despite the differences in kind and ingredients, Plaintiff claims the Product and the
2 Class Products have the same “Made in the U.S.A.” label located in the same location of
3 each product. However, merely have the same label is not enough to support standing
4 especially if product composition or ingredient is important. C.f. Miller, 912 F. Supp. 2d
5 at 869 (“Where product composition is less important, the cases turn on whether the
6 alleged misrepresentations are sufficiently similar across product lines.”). Here, the
7 product composition or ingredient is important to Plaintiff’s claim because she must show
8 each Class Product falls outside of the safe harbor provisions requiring that foreign
9 ingredients cannot exceed 10% of the final wholesale value of the product.
10 The Baum case is instructive. There, the plaintiff alleged that the products’ casings
11 and containers (tubes plastic bottles and resealable caps) were made outside the U.S.
12 despite the “Made in the U.S.A.” label on its products. Baum v. J-B Weld Co., LLC, Case
13 No. 19-cv-01718-EMC, 2019 WL 6841231, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2019). After
14 receiving guidance from the court that it was looking for a level of specificity to show
15 that the unpurchased products are substantially similar to the purchased products, the
16 plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, and divided the 24 purchased and
17 unpurchased products into four categories by type of packaging. Id. at *5. Plaintiff
18 provided specific allegations that the products were similarly packaged, and each
19 contained the “Made in the U.S.A.” label. Id. Ultimately, the court concluded that
20 because the plaintiff had described sufficient similarities among the containers within
21 each category, standing existed for the unpurchased products where the plaintiff “alleged
22 that the 24 products contain identical ‘Made in U.S.A.’ misrepresentations, are similar to
23
24
25
are actionably mislabeled, and the Court is not inclined to pore over each ingredient list and guess.”).
26 Moreover, even if Plaintiff could conduct the mathematical calculation, the Court also considered
marketing materials and the Product name in concluding that the combination of these allegations
27 plausibly alleges that the foreign ingredients constitute “more than 10% of the final wholesale value” of
the Product. Plaintiff has not provided specificity as to each Class Product’s marketing and whether the
28
1 each other in kind, and are comprised of the same foreign-sourced components that
2 render the ‘Made in U.S.A.’ representations false.” Id.
3 Sufficient similarity was also present in Sinatro v. Barilla America, Inc., 635 F.
4 Supp. 3d 858, 877 (N.D. Cal. 2022), where the plaintiffs alleged that the label, “Italy’s #1
5 Brand of Pasta” surrounded by the colors of the Italian flag represented that the dry pasta
6 products were made in Italy from ingredients sourced in Italy and was deceptive because
7 the products were made in Iowa and New York using ingredients sourced from countries
8 other than Italy. Id. at 865. The plaintiff asserted standing for a pasta product he
9 purchased and for 52 unpurchased products. Id. at 877. The court held that the plaintiffs
10 had standing to sue over the unpurchased products because the labels on the front of the
11 packaging were the same, the brand name was the same, and the dry pastas were made
12 from the same ingredients or types of ingredients and “milled in the same or similar
13 manner, and manufactured into the finished Products in the same or similar manner.” Id.
14 Here, Plaintiff has presented a list of 43 products she did not purchase and each has
15 a wide range of ingredients, including many other foreign ingredients not contained in the
16 Product. While Plaintiff identifies the foreign and likely foreign ingredients in each
17 product, she has not shown that the unpurchased Class Products are similar, in
18 ingredients, and in kind, between product lines. Her argument that the Class Products are
19 all hair care products is overly broad. See Oxina v. Lands' End, Inc., No. 14–cv–2577–
20 MMA (NLS), 2015 WL 4272058, at *6 (S.D. Cal. June 19, 2015) (standing not
21 sufficiently alleged between purchased tie and unpurchased “apparel” which “could
22 conceivably encompass hundreds, or even thousands of different types of products,
23 including those presumably made of different materials, and bearing different physical
24 labels than the Necktie purchased by Plaintiff.”) Also, Plaintiff’s argument that the Class
25 Products all contain foreign sourced ingredients does not demonstrate how the amount of
26 foreign ingredients in the Class Products exceed 10% of the final wholesale value and fall
27 outside the California safe harbor rules. Because Plaintiff’s claims hinge on the amount
28 of foreign ingredients in the product in relation to the non-foreign ingredients, Plaintiff
1 has not shown that these Class Products are substantially similar to the Product. Further,
2 Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the Class Products’ marketing and product name are
3 substantially similar to the Product. Additionally, Plaintiff has not shown that the “Made
4 in the U.S.A.” representation is the same in all the Class Products or in the same location,
5 as Plaintiff has only shown the PDPs of nine products.8 (Dkt. No. 18-1, Ex. A at 26-29;
6 Dkt. No. 18, Compl. ¶ 53.) Moreover, even though Exhibit A contains ten leave-in
7 products, Plaintiff has failed to allege and explain how the leave-in products in Exhibit A
8 are substantially similar in ingredients, and that the foreign ingredients “constitute not
9 more than 10 percent of the final wholesale value of the manufactured product.” Lastly,
10 Plaintiff’s attempt to assert standing to sue over products that have since been
11 discontinued or renamed and not specifically identified also fails as no specific products
12 have been identified and no allegations presented to show they are substantially similar to
13 the Product she purchased.
14 Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiff does not have standing over
15 products she did not purchase, and GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s
16 claims over any unpurchased products. See Sanchez v. Nurture, Inc., 626 F. Supp. 3d
17 1107, 1116-17 (N.D. Cal. 2022) (purchased product of food pouches and puffs was
18 similar in nature to unpurchased product of food pouches and puffs both in name and
19 ingredients and plaintiff had standing but did not have standing over unpurchased
20 products of bowls, bars, cereals, baking mixes, greek yogis, creamies, and cookies as they
21 contained different ingredients from the purchased products and are thus markedly
22
23
24
8 Plaintiff’s claim that the “Made in the U.S.A.” label is located in the same location and in the same
25 manner is contradicted by the allegations in the FAC. The FAC asserts that the Class Products “display
the same unqualified ‘Made in the USA’ representation or a similar unqualified U.S. origin claim” and
26 that the “Made in the U.S.A.” representation “is displayed in the same location on the packaging of
nearly every Class Product or, in some cases, in another conspicuous location on the product label.”
27 (Dkt. No. 18, FAC ¶¶ 11, 44.) Without providing the location and the specific “Made in the U.S.A.”
claim for each Class Product, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that each Class Product is substantially
28
1 || distinct from the purchased products which was dispositive even though they had the
2 ||same challenged nutrient content claims); Yamasaki v. Zicam LLC, Case No. 21-cv-
3 ||02596-HSG, 2021 WL 4951435, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2021) (“The Court accordingly
4 || finds that Plaintiff has failed to establish that Zicam Nasal Spray and Zicam Nasal Swabs,
5 || which do not contain zinc, are substantially similar to the other unpurchased products that
6 || contain zinc.”’).
7 Conclusion
8 Based on the above, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendant’s
9 || motion to dismiss the first amended complaint.
10 Prior to the filing of the FAC, Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration of the
11 Court’s order granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s motion to dismiss which is
12 || fully briefed. (Dkt. Nos. 16, 25, 27.) Because Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint,
13 || and the Court has ruled on Defendant’s motion to dismiss the FAC, the Court DENIES
14 || Defendant’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order on Defendant’s motion to
15 || dismiss the original complaint as MOOT. (Dkt. No. 16.) The hearing date set on
16 || December 12, 2025 shall be vacated.
17 IT IS SO ORDERED.
18 || Dated: December 9, 2025 <=

20 United States District Judge
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11221869. Public record. Not legal advice.