Kachuck Enterprises v. Mission Produce, Inc.

The federal district court for the Central District of California again dismissed U.S. avocado growers’ claims against distributors and suppliers of Mexico-grown avocados in which the U.S. growers alleged that the defendants misrepresented the sustainability of their avocados. The plaintiffs alleged that defendants source their avocados from recently deforested land, which exacerbates water scarcity, contributes to climate change, and leads to habitat and biodiversity loss. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint after the court dismissed their claims in September 2025. In its decision granting the motion to dismiss the amended complaint, the court again concluded that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently allege standing for a California False Advertising Law or fraud-based Unfair Competition Law (UCL) claim because they did not allege they themselves relied on the alleged misrepresentations regarding sustainability and the plaintiffs made only generalized assertions of third-party consumer reliance. The court also found that the plaintiffs’ claims of unlawful business practices and misrepresentation-based unfair business practices also failed. In addition, the court found that the plaintiffs did not adequately plead a UCL violation based on “unfair, anticompetitive conduct” in the amended complaint. The court found that the plaintiffs “have only shown injury to themselves as competitors, but not injury to competition,” with their allegations that the defendants’ sourcing practices were “exploitative” and anticompetitive. In addition, the court again dismissed the plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim. The court granted leave to amend their UCL claim based on alleged anticompetitive conduct but not their misrepresentation-based claims.

The federal district court for the Central District of California dismissed claims by California avocado farms that distributors and suppliers of Mexican-grown avocados misrepresented the sustainability of their avocados. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants source their avocados from deforested land in Mexico, which contributes to climate change and other environmental impacts. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to allege statutory standing for its claims of fraudulent business practices under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and of violation of California’s False Advertising Law because they did not allege actual reliance on the alleged misrepresentations, even by a consumer. The court reserved ruling on the question of whether the plaintiffs could rely on third-party consumers’ reliance on the alleged misrepresentations to establish standing. The court also found that the plaintiffs failed to state “unfair” or “unlawful” business practice claims under the UCL. In addition, the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim, finding that their complaint did not allege a basis for the allegation that the plaintiffs conveyed a market share benefit on the defendants. The court granted the plaintiffs leave to amend all of their claims.