A California plaintiff has filed a lawsuit alleging the Organic Candy Factory’s peach, boysenberry, blackberry and raspberry gummy candies contain “substitute flavors” rather than real fruit. Arabian v. Organic Candy Factory, No. 17-5410 (C.D. Cal., filed July 21, 2017). The plaintiff asserts that the company markets its gummy bears and gummy-filled chocolate as containing “nothing artificial ever,” leading consumers to believe the candy is made with real fruit and allowing the company to charge a premium. Claiming breach of warranties, breach of contract, fraud, misrepresentation, quasi contract and violations of California consumer-protection law, the plaintiff seeks class certification, damages, restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees. Issue 642
Tag Archives California
A California consumer has filed a putative class action against Dunkin’ Brands Group alleging that Dunkin' Donuts deceived customers into believing its blueberry and maple products contained “real” blueberries and maple syrup or sugar instead of artificial flavorings. Babaian v. Dunkin’ Brands Grp., No. 17-4890 (C.D. Cal., filed July 3, 2017). The plaintiff contends that the chain’s use of the terms “blueberry” and “maple” in doughnut names represent to consumers that the products contain “real ingredients” and that Dunkin’ has a duty to disclose the use of artificial flavorings. Further, the plaintiff asserts that whether the doughnuts actually contain “real ingredients” is material to a “reasonable” consumer’s purchase decision because of the antioxidant properties and health benefits of both blueberries and maple syrup. Claiming breach of warranties, breach of contract, fraud, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, quasi-contract and violations of California consumer-protection laws, the plaintiff seeks class certification, damages, restitution and…
A California man has filed a legal malpractice claim against lawyers who allegedly failed to represent him adequately in his suit against fruit processor Townsend Farms, in which he claimed he contracted hepatitis A after eating the company’s Organic Antioxidant Blend. Durrell v. Taylor, Sullivan & Mondorf, No. BC667419 (Cal. Sup. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., filed July 6, 2017). In 2013, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced that it was working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as well as state and local officials to investigate a multistate outbreak of hepatitis A and confirmed that 162 people had become ill after eating the product. In 2014, Durrell sued Townsend Farms in Yolo County, California, and his case was later consolidated with others in Los Angeles County. The complaint alleges that his attorney failed to respond to discovery requests or motions to compel, resulting in the levy of…
Blue Buffalo Pet Products faces a proposed class action alleging that three of its dog-food products contain unsafe levels of lead despite being advertised as “healthy” and “holistic.” Zakinov v. Blue Buffalo Pet Products, No. 17-1301 (S.D. Cal., filed June 26, 2017). The plaintiff, who asserts that his four-year-old dog died from kidney disease after eating “Blue Wilderness Chicken Recipe for Small Breed Adult Dogs,” “Blue Freedom Grain-Free Chicken Recipe for Small Breed Adult Dogs” and “Blue Basics Grain-Free Turkey & Potato Recipe for Adult Dogs,” alleges that independent lab testing found the products contained between 140 and 840 parts per billion of lead. Claiming negligent misrepresentation, negligence per se and violations of California consumer protection laws, the plaintiff seeks class certification, injunctive relief, corrective advertising, restitution, disgorgement, damages and attorney’s fees. Issue 640
A California couple has filed two putative class actions alleging that the makers of Lay’s® and Pringles® salt-and-vinegar flavored chips mislabel and deceptively advertise their products, leading customers to believe the chips are naturally flavored when they actually contain artificial chemical flavorings. Allred v. Kellogg, No.17-1354 (S.D. Cal., removed to federal court July 5, 2017); Allred v. Frito-Lay N. Am., No. 17-1345 (S.D. Cal., removed to federal court July 3, 2017). In both suits, the plaintiffs claim the manufacturers label and advertise the potato snacks “as if [they] were flavored only with natural ingredients” and as containing “no artificial flavors.” The plaintiffs allege that although both products contain “actual vinegar—but in an amount too small to flavor the product,” the chips’ vinegar flavors are artificial. The Lay’s® complaint alleges that the label states the product contains malic acid; although l-malic acid can be found naturally in fruits and vegetables, the plaintiffs…
Sugarfina, maker of “luxury boutique” candies, has filed a trademark, copyright, patent and trade dress infringement suit against Sweet Pete’s alleging the competitor relied “heavily on several design elements of Sugarfina’s distinctive packaging and marketing” of Cuba Libre®, Peach Bellini®, Fruttini, Candy Cube, Candy Concierge and Candy Bento Box® products. Sugarfina v. Sweet Pete’s, No. 17-4456 (C.D. Cal., filed June 15, 2017). Sugarfina asserts that Sweet Pete’s copied the names, “size, shape, color or color combinations, texture, graphics and sales techniques” of all six named product lines that Sugarfina packages in “museum-quality Lucite.” Sugarfina further argues that Sweet Pete’s was “a failing business prior to its radical transformation into a Sugarfina copycat.” The plaintiff seeks an injunction, treble damages, corrective advertising and attorney’s fees. Issue 639
Sanderson Farms, Inc.’s "all natural" chicken contains pesticides, antibiotics and other pharmaceuticals, according to a lawsuit filed by the Center for Food Safety, Friends of the Earth and Organic Consumers Association. Organic Consumers Ass’n v. Sanderson Farms, No. 17-3592 (N.D. Cal., filed June 22, 2017). The plaintiffs allege that Sanderson’s chicken products are advertised as “100% natural,” but testing purportedly shows the products contain human and veterinary antibiotics, tranquilizers, growth hormones, steroids and pesticides. The complaint further alleges the presence of such drugs indicate that Sanderson’s raises its chickens in “unnatural, intensive-confinement, warehouse conditions” rather than “sipping lemonade and playing volleyball” as represented in the company’s online advertising. For alleged violations of California consumer protection laws, the plaintiffs seek accounting of profits, injunctive relief, corrective advertising and attorney’s fees. “Consumers should be alarmed that any food they eat contains steroids, recreational or anti-inflammatory drugs, or antibiotics prohibited for use in livestock—much…
A plaintiff’s “cursory, formulaic recitation” of her purchase of Jelly Belly Candy Co.'s Sport Beans did not include enough factual allegations to establish a claim for relief, a California federal court has ruled. Gomez v. Jelly Belly Candy Co., No. 17-0575 (C.D. Cal., order entered June 8, 2017). The plaintiff had alleged the candy maker’s use of the term “evaporated cane juice” (ECJ) on the packaging misled her about the product's sugar content. Additional details on the complaint appear in Issue 629 of this Update. “Absent from the Complaint are any factual allegations concerning the circumstances of Gomez’s purchase of the product, how she intended to use the product, whether she in fact expected a sugar-free product, whether she thought ‘evaporated cane juice’ was juice as opposed to sugar, and whether she consumed the product,” the court said, granting Jelly Belly's motion to dismiss. However, the court ruled that Gomez…
A consumer has filed a putative class action alleging Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. failed to take measures to prevent an April 2017 data breach in which hackers used malware to steal customer data from the magnetic stripes on payment cards. Baker v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., No. 17-1134 (C.D. Cal., filed June 9, 2017). The complaint alleges that Chipotle failed to take “adequate and reasonable measures” to protect its data systems, which reportedly contain personally identifiable information in addition to payment card data. The plaintiff seeks class certification, equitable relief, damages and attorney’s fees. Issue 638
A California federal court has decertified a class and granted partial summary judgment in an action alleging Kraft Foods Group falsely advertised its fat-free cheddar cheese as “natural.” Morales v. Kraft Foods Grp., No. 14-4387 (C.D. Cal, order entered June 9, 2017). Details on previous decisions in the case appear in Issues 570 and 625 of this Update. The court first granted summary judgment for Kraft as to restitution because the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence about their potential willingness to pay a premium based on the “natural cheese” label and therefore could not establish a basis for calculating restitution for the class. Turning to the issue of whether the consumers' belief that the cheese was "natural" was material to their purchasing decisions, the court determined that the plaintiffs' expert testimony created a triable issue of fact that could not be dismissed during the summary-judgment phase. Denying that portion…
