Trammell v. Kln Enterprises, Inc.

── Trammell v. Kln Enterprises, Inc. ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 15, 2026 Category: General FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARK TRAMMELL, individually No. 24-6097 and on behalf of all those similarly D.C. No. situated, 3:23-cv-01884-H- JLB Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OPINION KLN ENTERPRISES, INC., a Minnesota corporation; DBA, Wiley Wallaby, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted March 5, 2026 Pasadena, California Filed May 15, 2026 Before: Kim McLane Wardlaw, Ana de Alba, and Eric C. Tung, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Tung 2 TRAMMELL V. KLN ENTERPRISES, INC. SUMMARY * Product Labels / Consumer Fraud The panel reversed the district court’s dismissal of a putative class action against KLN Enterprises, Inc., alleging that representations on KLN’s licorice product packaging were false and misleading. Plaintiff alleged that, although the product’s label represented that it was free of artificial colors and flavors, the product contained an artificial flavor—DL malic acid. The panel held that the district court erroneously concluded that plaintiff’s complaint failed to satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)’s heightened pleading standard when it did not plead with sufficient particularity that the malic acid used in the product was artificial. Plaintiff’s allegations were sufficient when they set out: the “who” of the fraud (KLN); the “what” (KLN’s representation that its product was free of artificial colors and flavors); the “when” (around the time plaintiff purchased the product in May 2023); the “where” (the purchase occurred at a Target in Encinitas, California); and the “how” (the statements on the product’s label represented that the product was naturally flavored and free of artificial flavors and colors). Plaintiff also gave notice to KLN and provided the court with some assurance that his theory of liability had a basis in fact. The panel held that the district court also erred in concluding that plaintiff’s complaint failed to allege a * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.  TRAMMELL V. KLN ENTERPRISES, INC. 3 plausible claim of consumer fraud under California law. Under the “reasonable consumer standard” that governs claims under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, plaintiff plausibly pleaded that a reasonable consumer was likely to be deceived by a product that claimed to be free of artificial flavors when that claim was (allegedly) not true. Accordingly, the panel reversed the district court’s judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice, and remanded for further proceedings. COUNSEL Charles C. Weller (argued), Charles C. Weller APC, San Diego, California, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Jaikaran Singh (argued), Foley & Lardner LLP, San Diego, California; Kelsey Finn, Foley & Lardner LLP, Los Angeles, California; for Defendant-Appellee. 4 TRAMMELL V. KLN ENTERPRISES, INC. OPINION TUNG, Circuit Judge: The defendant company in this case represented to consumers that its berry snacks product contained no artificial flavors. The plaintiff bought the product believing the representation to be true. It turned out, however, that the product contained an artificial flavor. Laboratory testing revealed that the product’s flavoring was not naturally occurring but made from an artificial petroleum substrate. At least this is what the plaintiff