Court Provides Roadmap for Plaintiff to Amend False Claims Suit Against Tea Company

A federal court in California has deferred ruling on the motion to dismiss
filed in a consumer protection lawsuit against R.C. Bigelow, Inc. to give the
plaintiff an opportunity to amend her complaint. Khasin v. R.C. Bigelow, Inc.,
No. 12-2204 (N.D. Cal., order entered February 6, 2013). Indicating
that it was inclined to allow most of her state-law claims to proceed and to
dismiss her federal claims, the court counseled the defendant “that the Court
did not find its arguments regarding preemption and abstention under the
doctrine of primary jurisdiction persuasive.”

According to the court, the plaintiff has filed claims on behalf of a putative class alleging that the company misrepresents the health benefits of drinking tea and promotes and labels its green tea products with antioxidant assertions “expressly condemned by the Food and Drug Administration [FDA].” The court found the substance of many of the plaintiff’s allegations unclear or too detailed in terms of FDA regulation and recommends that she amend the complaint to clarify (i) “what statements and/or omissions mislead reasonable consumers or misbranded Bigelow’s tea products,” (ii) “what specific statements Plaintiff viewed on Bigelow’s website before she purchased Bigelow’s tea and relied upon in making such purchases,” and (iii) “when she viewed each alleged statement.”

The court also urged her to allege, as to class members who purchased other
Bigelow products, “how the packaging on these unspecified tea products is
similar to the packaging on Green Tea with Lemon or the other two teas she
purchased.” Noting that it was also inclined to limit the claims to the green
tea products, the court urged the plaintiff, if she files an amended complaint
no later than March 1, 2013, “to show that the Court would have jurisdiction
under CAFA [the Class Action Fairness Act] of this more narrowed purported
class.”