Overview

HOLDINGS: [1]-The district court properly dismissed the putative class action for lack of Article III standing because plaintiff had not plausibly alleged that, as a result of her purchase and consumption of defendant’s popcorn, which contained partially hydrogenated oils, she suffered economic injury. Given that the health risks of consuming the popcorn were established by 2008, the court was not persuaded that the popcorn plaintiff purchased was worth objectively less than what one could reasonably expect; plaintiff’s benefit of the bargain theory fell short; [2]-Plaintiff did not sufficient allege an injury in fact because she had not plausibly alleged that her consumption of the popcorn caused her immediate physical injury or substantially increased her risk of disease. The California litigation lawyer made a motion to protect the party’s interest.

Outcome

Judgment affirmed.