Photo of Sunita Bali

Atik v. Welch Foods, Inc., No. 15cv5405 (E.D.N.Y.):  Putative class action alleging claims under New York and California consumer protection laws, as well as claims for breaches of express and implied warranty and unjust enrichment, claiming that Defendants’ fruit snacks are misbranded and misrepresented as containing more fruit than they actually contain. Complaint.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. et al. v. Whole Foods, Inc., No. 15cv4301 (N.D. Cal.):  Putative class action on behalf of consumers and PETA alleging claims under California’s UCL, FAL, and CLRA, alleging that although Whole Foods represents that it has a five-step rating system for sourcing meat products and that its meat suppliers meet high standards for animal treatment, these representations are false because the standards are meaningless and not rigorously enforced. Complaint.

Kincaid v. XO Health Co., No 1522-cc10662 (St. Louis Circuit Ct. Mo.): Putative class action alleging a claim under Missouri’s consumer protection statute and unjust enrichment, claiming that Defendant’s baking mix products are misrepresented as being “all natural” when in fact they contain sodium acid pyrophosphate (SAPP). Complaint.
Continue Reading New Filings for October, 16, 2015

Marentette v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., No. 15-cv-2837 (E.D.N.Y.): Putative class action alleging that Similac and Advance Organic Infant Formulas allege that Abbott misleadingly markets the formulas as “organic” when in fact the formulas contain “a spectacular array and substantial amount of ingredients prohibited in organic foods.” Complaint.

O’Brien v. Kind, LLC, No. 1:15-cv-3699 (S.D.N.Y.):

Brown v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc., No. 11-cv-03082 (N.D. Cal.): The Court granted partial summary judgment to Plaintiffs in this putative consumer class action asserting violations of California CLRA, UCL, and COPA based on allegations that Defendants sold two lines of cosmetics using the word “organic” on their labels, although they contained less than

Peterson v. CJ America, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-2570 (S.D. Cal.): The Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, motion to strike, in putative class action alleging that several of Defendant’s prepackaged food products were mislabeled as having “NO MSG ADDED” and “100% all natural ingredients” when

Teufel v. Karlin Foods Corp., No. 1:14-cv-23100 (S.D. Fla.): The Court granted motion for preliminary settlement approval in putative class action alleging that Defendant advertises its Great Value Corn Starch as “All Natural,” and sells it at a premium, when in fact it contains unnatural, synthetic, artificial, and/or genetically modified cornstarch. The terms of

Jackson v. Whole Foods Market Inc., No. 2:14-cv-06705 (C.D. Cal.): The Court transferred this case to the Western District of Texas, following the transfer of at least seven other similar cases, where Plaintiffs allege that Whole Foods misrepresents its 365 Everyday Value Plain Greek Yogurt as having 2 grams of sugar per serving when it

Richards v. Safeway, No. 13-cv-4317 (N.D. Cal.): Plaintiff’s individual claims were voluntarily dismissed with prejudice, and the putative class claims dismissed without prejudice, in this putative class action alleging that Safeway’s frozen waffles were wrongly labeled “100% Natural” when they contain SAPP. Order.

Seidman v. Snack Factory LLC, No. 14cv62547 (S.D. Fla.):  Plaintiffs allege that Defendant falsely labels its Pretzel Crisps “all natural” when they contain synthetic or artificial ingredients such as maltodextrin, soybean oil, dextrose and caramel color. Complaint.

Browne v. The Coca-Cola Co., No. 14-cv-02687 (S.D. Cal.): Plaintiffs allege that Defendant falsely promoted and

Brazil v. Dole Food Company, Inc. et al., No. 5:12-cv-01831(N.D. Cal.): The Court decertified a damages class but declined to certify an injunction class in this action where Plaintiff alleges that Dole’s fruit products are misbranded as “all natural.”  In decertifying the damages class, the Court ruled that the damages report prepared by Plaintiff’s expert