Vilma R. Palma-Solana

Subscribe to Vilma R. Palma-Solana's Posts
Contact:Read more about Vilma R. Palma-Solana

Azimpour v. NBTY, Inc., et al., No. 37-2017-21000 (Cal. Super. Ct. – San Diego Cnty.):  copycat putative class action asserting violations of California’s UCL, FAL, and CLRA, and a claim for breach of express warranty. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants deceptively label and market their Natures’ Bounty and Sundown Naturals Ginkgo Biloba extract products as providing a variety of cognitive health benefits and relief from various symptoms, despite the lack of scientific evidence to support those claims.
Continue Reading New Filings – June 26, 2017

Kremmel v. Pac. Foods of Or., Inc.¸ No. 16L156 (Ill. Cir. Ct. – St. Clair Cnty.): Putative class action asserting a violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and a claim of unjust enrichment. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant misrepresented certain of its non-dairy beverage products (Hemp and Hazelnut) as being “all natural” although they contain several synthetic ingredients, including Xanthan Gum and Riboflavin.  Complaint.

Shihad v. Wild Planet Foods, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-1478 (N.D. Cal.): Putative class action asserting violations of California’s CLRA, FAL, and UCL, and claims for breach of warranty (express and implied merchantability), fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. Plaintiff alleges Defendant’s five-ounce canned tuna products are under filled and substantially underweight.  Complaint.

Agles v. Kraft Heinz Foods Co., No. 3:16-cv-1552 (C.D. Cal.): Copycat putative class action asserting claims under California’s UCL, FAL, CLRA, and for common law breach of express warranty.  Plaintiff alleges that Defendant falsely advertises its grated parmesan cheese products as “100% parmesan cheese,” when the products contain significant amounts of adulterants and fillers, including cellulose, a filler and anti-clumping agent derived from wood pulp.  Complaint.
Continue Reading New Filings for April 22, 2016

Petersen v. CJ America, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-02570 (S.D. Cal.):  The Court issued an order granting preliminary approval of settlement in this putative class action asserting violations of California’s consumer protection statutes and a claim for breach of express warranty.  Plaintiff claims that Defendant’s Annie Chun’s brand of prepackaged food products are misrepresented as having…

Garrison v. Whole Foods Market, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-5222 (N.D. Cal.): The Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this putative class action alleging that Whole Foods’ house-brand baked goods are mislabeled “all natural” in violation of California consumer protection statutes because they include “synthetic” ingredients including sodium acid pyrophosphate and maltodextrin. With regard to Plaintiffs’ claims for breach of contract and violation of the CLRA, the Court granted Defendant’s motion, after finding Plaintiffs’ lacked privity with Defendant to bring a contract claim.  The Court disposed of the CLRA claim because Plaintiffs sent the statutorily required pre-suit notice to the wrong entity and never cured the defect. 
Continue Reading Whole Foods’ Motion for Summary Judgment Granted-in-Part and Denied-in-Part in Baked Goods Labeling Row

Mateel Envtl. Justice v. OEHHA, No. RG15754547 (Cal. Super. Ct. – Alameda Cnty.): The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in this action seeking to invalidate the Proposition 65 regulatory safe harbor for lead.  The Court rejected Plaintiff’s assertion that the OEHHA adopted the safe harbor level after erroneously relying on…

Sims v. Albertson, LLC et al, No. 1:16-cv-10553 (D. Mass.):  Copycat putative class action asserting claims for breach of warranty (express and implied merchantability), and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff alleges Defendants have falsely advertised their grated parmesan cheese products as containing “100% parmesan cheese,” when the products contain significant amounts of adulterants and fillers, including cellulose, a filler and anti-clumping agent derived from wood pulp.  Complaint.

McCartney v. Trader Joe’s Co., No. CGC-16-551071 (Cal. Super. Ct. – San Francisco Cnty.): Proposition 65 action alleging Defendant’s unsweetened cocoa powder contains cadmium. Complaint.

Giffin v. Universal Protein Supplement Corp., No. BC613414 (Cal. Super. Ct. – Los Angeles Cnty.): Putative class action asserting violations of California’s consumer protection statutes and claims for negligent and intentional misrepresentation.  Plaintiff accuses Defendants of falsely labeling their protein supplement products “Made in the U.S.A.,” although the products contain foreign ingredients. Complaint.
Continue Reading New Filings for April 15, 2016

Walker v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., No. 4:15-cv-2424 (N.D. Cal.): The Court granted Defendants motion to dismiss with leave to amend in this putative class action asserting breach of warranty claims (express and implied merchantability) and violations of California’s consumer protection statutes. The complaint alleges Defendant misleadingly markets its Crunch n’ Munch caramel popcorn snacks…

Khasin v. R.C. Bigelow Inc., No. 3:12-cv-2204 (N.D. Cal.): The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for class certification in this putative class action asserting violations of California’s UCL, CLRA, and FAL, and raising a claim for unjust enrichment.  Plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint accuses Defendant of making unlawful health, nutrient content, and antioxidant claims on the packaging of its tea products.

The Court declined to certify a class under Rule 23(b), finding Plaintiff lacked standing because it was unlikely that he would be harmed by the product in the future.  United States District Judge William H. Orrick found Plaintiff’s allegation that he “would consider” purchasing Bigelow tea in the future if the company complied with California law fell short of the standard for demonstrating a future intent to purchase the products.  The Court also found Plaintiff had not established a likelihood that he would suffer the same injury alleged in the future.
Continue Reading Court Denies Plaintiffs’ Bids for Class Certification in Suits Alleging Tea Company Made Improper Antioxidant Claims