Ang v. Bimbo’s Bakeries, Inc., No. 13cv1196 (N.D. Cal.): In a case involving the labeling of Thomas’ English Muffins, Sara Lee bread, and various Entenmann products, the court denied the majority of defendant’s motion to dismiss. According to the court, the complaint adequately alleged particularity under Rule 9 and satisfied pleading requirements for injury and reliance. In addition, the court held that claims that the American Heart Association’s Heart Check mark is a “paid endorsement” must be disclosed as such, but is not. The court also allowed the complaint to move forward on products the plaintiffs did not purchase, although it made clear that the products must be substantially similar to the products plaintiff did purchase. Order.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Charles Sipos Charles Sipos

Charles Sipos is a class action litigator with more than two decades of experience focusing on technology, consumer goods, and privacy issues.

He litigates class actions nationwide and has appeared and argued on behalf of defendants in federal courts, including in California, Colorado…

Charles Sipos is a class action litigator with more than two decades of experience focusing on technology, consumer goods, and privacy issues.

He litigates class actions nationwide and has appeared and argued on behalf of defendants in federal courts, including in California, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits. Charles’ litigation successes have included dismissals and summary judgment based on lack of Article III injury, statutory standing under consumer protection laws, federal preemption, primary jurisdiction, failure to allege damages, First Amendment protection for commercial speech, the “reasonable consumer” standard, and related defenses.