A California resident has filed a putative statewide class action against Ralphs Grocery Co., alleging that it misleads consumers by labeling its decaffeinated coffee products as “without caffeine” when they are actually, according to labeling fine print, “99.7% caffeine free.” Kopalian v. Ralphs Grocery Co., No. BC533846 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., filed January 22, 2014). The plaintiff invokes no state or federal law labeling violations, but instead claims that the labeling and packaging are “likely to confuse and mislead consumers.” He contends that he relied on the “without caffeine” labeling to make his purchase, believing that the product was 100 percent caffeine free, and chose it over other brands for this reason. Alleging breach of express warranty and violations of the state’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, including a corrective advertising campaign, actual and punitive damages, restitution,…
Tag Archives California
Finding significant differences among the state laws applicable to a putative nationwide class action alleging injury to pets and economic damages from the purchase of dog treats containing chicken jerky from China, a federal court in California has denied the plaintiff’s request for class certification. Holt v. Globalinx Pet LLC, No. 13-0041 (C.D. Cal., S. Div., order entered January 30, 2014). According to the court, “[w]hile the Plaintiff maintains that the laws of California should apply to the proposed nationwide classes, the Defendants have catalogued a series of material differences between the consumer protection laws of several states and those of California, and crucially, this Court has already performed a case-specific conflict of law analysis and determined that Texas law would govern four of the named Plaintiff’s causes of action.” Agreeing that these differences were material, the court concluded that the proposed classes “do not meet the predominance and superiority…
A federal court in California has dismissed with prejudice a number of claims in a putative nationwide class action alleging that Gerber Products Co. misleads consumers and violates state and federal labeling laws by making certain nutrient-content and sugar-related claims on its baby food product labels. Bruton v. Gerber Prods. Co., No. 12-2412 (N.D. Cal., order entered January 15, 2014). Among the claims dismissed with prejudice were those relating to (i) products that the named plaintiff had not purchased and had failed, in her second amended complaint, to adequately allege how they are substantially similar to any of the purchased products; (ii) company website statements that the named plaintiff did not view, but that supported some of her claims; and (iii) the theory that Gerber breached a duty to disclose that its products were misbranded under federal and California law. Because the court found that Gerber’s remaining challenges in its motion…
A federal court in California has dismissed putative class claims relating to any product other than Mott’s 100% Apple Juice because the plaintiff failed to properly allege that the company’s numerous sauce products are mislabeled under state and federal law. Rahman v. Mott’s LLP, No. 13-3482 (N.D. Cal., order entered January 29, 2014). The court also dismissed claims under the state’s False Advertising Law, the fraud prong of the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act because they were not sufficiently pleaded, and further dismissed the plaintiff’s claim for negligent misrepresentation for failure to plead justifiable reliance. The court disagreed that the action should be dismissed under the primary jurisdiction doctrine or that the UCL claim should be dismissed for failure to allege facts that would satisfy the reasonable consumer test. As to the latter, the court reiterated that this test “does not apply to claims brought…
In response to a court order requiring the parties to respond to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) refusal at the court’s request to determine whether foods with genetically modified (GM) ingredients may be labeled “natural” or “all natural,” the parties to litigation involving tortilla chips have filed their pleadings. Cox v. Gruma Corp., No. 12-6502 (N.D. Cal., filed January 24, 2014). Information about FDA’s January 6 letter appears in Issue 509 of this Update. Gruma argues that the case continues to meet “all the factors for invoking primary jurisdiction. . . . The FDA’s response is simply that for its own procedural and budgetary reasons it does not intend to consider the referred issue at the current time in this particular posture. The FDA response, if anything, reinforces why the FDA should be the one to resolve this issue. This is particularly true because the same issue of…
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has announced that, effective January 31, 2014, trichloroethylene will be listed as known to the state to cause reproductive toxicity for purposes of Proposition 65 (Prop. 65). According to OEHHA, the listing is “based on formal identification by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), an authoritative body, that the chemical causes reproductive toxicity (developmental and male reproductive endpoints).” The chemical is used as a solvent for a variety of organic materials and was used historically in coffee decaffeination and the preparation of extracts from hops and spices. See OEHHA News Release, January 31, 2014. Issue 511
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has proposed adding a regulation to Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations to “clarify the procedure and criteria OEHHA uses to list and de-list chemicals via the ‘Labor Code’ listing mechanism of Proposition 65.” A public hearing on the proposal has been slated for March 21, 2014, and comments are requested by April 4. OEHHA maintains the list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65). Chemicals may be added to the list through one of four ways, including those that have been identified by reference to certain subsections of the California Labor Code. While OEHHA has established regulations setting forth general criteria for listing chemicals via the other listing mechanisms, it has not previously done so for the Labor Code mechanism.…
A California resident has filed a putative statewide class action in a California federal court against Diamond Foods, Inc., alleging that the company misleads consumers by prominently labeling its line of TIAS Tortilla Chips® as “All Natural” when they contain artificial ingredients such as maltodextrin and/or dextrose. Surzyn v. Diamond Foods, Inc. No. 14-136 (N.D. Cal., filed January 9, 2014). The complaint has been crafted to avoid some of the pitfalls that other plaintiffs have encountered bringing similar claims, including express references to the defendant making “the exact same ‘All Natural’ claim in the exact same prominently displayed location on the front packaging,” to forestall a court finding that the plaintiff lacks standing to pursue claims for products she did not actually purchase. Alleging economic injury, that is, not receiving the benefit of the bargain, and expressly not seeking “to contest or enforce any state law that has requirements beyond those…
According to news sources, San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman have entered an agreement to share documents and otherwise coordinate efforts in their ongoing investigations of Monster Beverage Corp., which, they allege, illegally markets highly caffeinated beverages to children. Herrera reportedly said, “Up until now, we have been working in parallel fashion, but now you will see greater cooperation. I have enormous respect for Attorney General Schneiderman and am glad to be working with his office in this major consumer protection issue.” Herrera further claimed that the company continues “to market its potentially dangerous products to children, despite the known risks it poses to young people. Hopefully, our efforts can lead to a reform of those practices.” The agreement was apparently struck about the same time that a court dismissed Monster Beverage’s attempt to stop Herrera’s investigation. Details about the ruling appear in…
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has issued a hazard identification document for six chemicals that will be reconsidered for listing as reproductive toxicants under Proposition 65. Used in epoxy resins or as plasticizers, the chemicals—n-butyl glycidyl ether, diglycidyl ether, phenyl glycidyl ether, methyl n-butyl ketone, methyl isopropyl ketone, and α-methyl styrene—were added to the list via the Labor Code mechanism. Changes to federal regulations affecting this listing mechanism have required that the chemicals be reconsidered. Public comments are requested by February 25, 2014, and the Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee will discuss them during its March 19 meeting. Manufacturers of products containing chemicals determined to be known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity are required to provide warnings to consumers under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65). See OEHHA News Release, January 10, 2014. Issue…
