Hawkins v. The Kroger Co., No. 3:15-cv-02320 (S.D. Cal.): The Court granted Defendant’s motion and dismissed (with prejudice) this putative class action asserting violations of California’s consumer protection statutes and warranty claims. Plaintiff claimed Defendant’s bread crumb products were misbranded because they were labeled “0g Trans Fat” although the products contain partially hydrogenated oil…

Consumer Advocacy Grp. v. Hanham Chain USA, Inc., No. BC612916 (Cal. Super. Ct. – Los Angeles Cnty.): Proposition 65 action alleging that Defendants’ Haemirae Seasoned Seaweed products contain lead. Complaint.

Consumer Advocacy Grp. v. Hoa Binh Pomona Supermarket, No. BC612916 (Cal. Super. Ct. – Los Angeles Cnty.): Proposition 65 action alleging that B&C Roasted Seaweed products sold by Defendants contain lead. Complaint.

Greene v. Gerber Prods. Co., No. 1:16-cv-1153 (E.D.N.Y.): Putative class action asserting violations of Ohio and  North Carolina’s consumer protection statutes and claims of fraudulent concealment, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs allege Defendants have misleadingly marketed their Good Start brand of infant formula as reducing certain allergies. Complaint.…
Continue Reading New Filings for April 8, 2016

Cortina v. Goya Foods, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-00169 (S.D. Cal.): The Court denied Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in this putative class action asserting violations of California’s consumer protection statutes (FAL, CLRA, UCL). Plaintiffs allege Defendant failed to disclose certain information about the 4-MEI contained in its Malta Goya soft drinks.  The Court…

Backus v. Nestle USA, Inc., No. 3:15-cv-1963 (N.D. Cal.): The Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss with prejudice in this putative class action asserting violations of California’s consumer protection statutes and common law warranty claims based on the contention that (1) Nestle misleadingly represents that its Coffee-mate creamer products contain “0g Trans fat” and (2) the use of PHOs in the creamer products is inherently unfair.

The Court found Plaintiff’s suit, which “seeks to make it immediately unlawful to market or sell” products containing PHOs in California, was in conflict with the FDA’s order granting a 2018 compliance date and thus preempted.  The Court also found the action was a barrier to the FDA’s stated objectives of minimizing market disruptions, providing time to develop suitable alternatives to PHOs, and providing time to grow new varieties of edible oilseeds to meet consumer demands. The Court rejected Plaintiff’s argument that an FDA had issued a statement finding state laws prohibiting PHOs in foods were not likely in conflict with its order.  In so doing, the Court described the statement as ambiguous and noted that it was preceded by a statement in which the FDA expressly “decline[d] to take a position” on the preemptive effect of its order on state or local law.  Finally, the Court noted that Congress’ CAA § 754 ratifying the FDA’s final determination rendered any argument that the FDA lacked the authority to legalize the use of PHOs moot until June 2018.

…
Continue Reading Court Dismissed False Advertising Suit Involving Coffee Creamer With Prejudice, After Finding Claims Preempted by Federal Law

Lee v. Kraft Heinz Foods Co.¸ No. 3:16-cv-536 (N.D. Ohio): Copycat putative class action asserting violations of Ohio’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act, and raising a claim of unjust enrichment. Plaintiff alleges Defendant has falsely advertised its grated parmesan cheese products as “100% parmesan cheese,” although the products contain significant amounts of adulterants and fillers, including cellulose, a filler and anti-clumping agent derived from wood pulp. Complaint.

Davies v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., No. 1:16-cv-535 (N.D. Ohio): Copycat putative class action asserting violations of Ohio’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act, and raising a claim of unjust enrichment. Plaintiff accuses Defendants of falsely advertising their grated parmesan cheese products as “100% parmesan cheese,” although 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 4, 2016

Lewin v. Kraft Heinz Foods Co., No. 3:16-cv-823 (N.D. Cal.): Putative class action alleging violation of California’s CLRA, UCL, and FAL, as well as claims for breach of warranty (express and implied merchantability), fraud, and negligent misrepresentation, based on the allegation that Defendant has falsely advertised its grated parmesan cheese products as containing “100% parmesan cheese,” when in fact the product contains significant amounts of adulterants and fillers, including cellulose, a filler and anti-clumping agent derived from wood pulp. Complaint.

Moschetta v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. dba Great Value, No. 7:16-cv-1377 (S.D.N.Y.): Putative class action alleging violation of New York’s consumer protection statutes on behalf of a New York subclass, and all other states’ consumer protection statutes on behalf of a national class, as well as claims for breach of warranty (implied fitness and implied merchantability) and common law unjust enrichment, based on the allegation that Defendant falsely advertised its Great Value grated parmesan cheese products as containing “100% parmesan cheese,” when the product contains significant amounts of adulterants and fillers, including cellulose, a filler and anti-clumping agent derived from wood pulp. Complaint.…
Continue Reading New Filings for March 7, 2016

Hunter et al v. Nature’s Way Products, LLC et al¸ No. 37-2016-2933 (Cal. Sup. Ct. – San Diego Cnty.): Putative class action alleging violations of California’s UCL, CLRA, and FAL and asserting breach of warranty claims, based on the allegation that Defendants misleadingly label and market their Nature’s Way coconut oil as “inherently healthy, and a healthy alternative to butter and other oils,” when in fact it is inherently unhealthy and a less healthy alternative. Complaint.  

Bailey et al v. Kind, LLC, No. 8:16-cv-168 (C.D. Cal.): Putative class action alleging violations of California and New York’s consumer protection statutes, as well as claims of fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and breach of the express and implied warranty of merchantability, based on the allegation that Defendant falsely represented that eating two Kind bars a day helps prevent weight gain.” Complaint.…
Continue Reading New Filings for February 5, 2016

Jones v. Nutiva, Inc., No. 4:16-cv-711 (N.D. Cal.): Putative class action alleging violations of California’s UCL, CLRA, and FAL, based on the allegation that Defendant misleadingly labels and markets its coconut oil product as “inherently healthy,” and a “healthy alternative to butter and other oils,” when in fact its products are inherently unhealthy. Complaint.

Daniels et al v. Izze Beverage Co., No. CGC 16-550319 (Cal. Sup. Ct. – San Francisco Cnty.):  Putative class action alleging violations of California’s UCL, FAL, CLRA, and a claim for breach of quasi-contract, based on the allegation that Defendant falsely represents that its carbonated juice products contain “no preservatives,” when the products contain citric acid and/or ascorbic acid. Complaint.…
Continue Reading New Filings for February 23, 2016