A federal court in California has reportedly determined that a named plaintiff in a putative consumer-fraud class action may pursue claims pertaining to the defendant’s green tea products but not its black teas. Khasin v. R.C. Bigelow, Inc., No. 12-2204 (N.D. Cal., order entered May 31, 2013). The plaintiff apparently alleges that the defendant made misleading statements in press releases and on its website about the presence of antioxidants in its tea products, including both green and black teas. Because he did not purchase the black teas, the court ruled that he lacked standing to represent consumers who did purchase them. The court also reportedly dismissed the plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim but refused to dismiss most of his other allegations finding them sufficiently pleaded. See Bloomberg BNA Product Safety & Liability Reporter, June 4, 2013.
Tag Archives tea
A federal court in California has granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss filed by Twinings North America, Inc. to the second amended putative class complaint filed by a woman who alleged that she paid a premium for the company’s green, black, white, and red teas relying on their purportedly misleading label—“a natural source of antioxidants.” Lanovaz v. Twinings N. Am., Inc., No. 12-2646 (N.D. Cal., order entered May 23, 2013). The company sought to dismiss claims relating to products the plaintiff did not purchase, labeling the plaintiff did not see or advertising upon which the plaintiff did not rely. According to the court, as long as the “not purchased products” are nearly identical, a plaintiff may bring claims on behalf of others related to those products. Here, “Because the claims for 51 of the varieties of tea are based upon the exact same label describing…
A federal court in California has decertified and entered summary judgment against a statewide class alleging that AriZona Iced Tea beverages with “All Natural,” “100% Natural” and “Natural” labels violated state consumer protection laws because they contain high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) and citric acid, ingredients alleged by the plaintiffs to be man-made. Ries v. AriZona Beverages USA LLC, No. 10 01139 (N.D. Cal., decided March 28, 2013). Additional information about this case and similar litigation before a New Jersey court appears in issues 360, 408 and 463 of this Update. According to the court, the plaintiffs failed to produce any evidence or timely identify any expert who could prove that HFCS and citric acid are not natural. They claimed that they would be able to do so during the “merit state of discovery,” but failed to produce such evidence within the court’s discovery deadlines. Nor, according to the court,…
A federal court in California has dismissed some of the putative class claims filed against Twining North America, Inc., alleging that the company misled consumers by labeling its green tea products as a “natural source of antioxidants.” Lanovaz v. Twinings N. Am., Inc., No. 12-2646 (N.D. Cal., order entered February 25, 2013). Stricken with leave to amend are claims based on labels or products other than green tea because the named plaintiff alleged that she purchased green tea only. The court disagreed with the defendant that the state law-based claims were preempted, finding that by stating its tea is a “natural source of antioxidants,” the defendant made a nutrient content claim regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and that the plaintiff was seeking to enforce state law identical to federal requirements. So ruling, the court cited an FDA warning letter sent to the company over its alleged “nutrient content…
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…
A federal court has agreed to certify a class of California consumers allegedly misled by representations that AriZona Iced Tea® is “Natural” because it contains the processed, man-made ingredients high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) and citric acid. Ries v. Arizona Beverages USA LLC, No. 10-01139 (N.D. Cal., order entered November 27, 2012). But the court granted the certification motion “for the purpose of injunctive and declaratory relief only” thus foreclosing the recovery of “monetary damages, including restitution, refund, reimbursement and disgorgement.” The named plaintiffs had sought certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), which “does not authorize class certification when each class member would be entitled to an individualized award of monetary damages.” According to the court, the claim for monetary relief predominates the complaint, and the plaintiffs “seek individualized awards of monetary restitution which would require individualized assessments of damages based on how many products the class member had…
A putative class action filed in a California state court claims that Monster Rehab®, a green tea and energy drink, contains unknown amounts of epigallocatechin-3-gallate (ECGC), “an extremely dangerous and potentially lethal ingredient,” and that the company fails to warn consumers of its potential hepatotoxic side effects. Wooding v. Monster Energy Co., No. 30-2012-00609716 (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty., filed November 5, 2012). While the named plaintiff, a Huntington Beach, California, resident, has not apparently experienced any side effects, she claims to have “suffered injury in fact and has lost money and property as a result of the unfair, deceptive, untrue and misleading advertising described herein, including the purchase price for products that are of little or no value and are dangerous.” Among other matters, the plaintiff claims that those with compromised livers should not drink the product, nor should it be consumed with alcohol. Yet, she points to ads…
Celestial Seasonings has filed a complaint against Mexican and Texas companies that are allegedly infringing its Sleepytime trademark with a tea product sold under a “Sleeping Time” mark. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Royal Tea S.A. de C.V., No. 11-2504 (E.D.N.Y., filed May 24, 2011). According to the complaint, Celestial began registering its marks for tea and dietary supplements in 1975. Contending that the defendants’ Sleeping Time mark is “confusingly similar,” Celestial alleges that the defendants were fully aware of Celestial’s rights to the Sleepytime mark because they tried to cancel Celestial’s Mexican trademark registration. The complaint alleges trademark infringement, trademark dilution and unfair competition under federal law, and related counts under state law. The plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction, destruction of infringing inventory and advertising, treble damages, costs, and attorney’s fees.
A federal district court in New York has granted the motion for summary judgment filed by Snapple Beverage Corp. in a case alleging that the company misled consumers by labeling its teas and juice drinks as “All Natural” because the company’s beverages contain high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS). Weiner v. Snapple Beverage Corp., No. 07-8742 (S.D.N.Y., decided January 21, 2011). The court had previously denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification but determined, despite that denial, that it could decide the merits of the summary judgment motion even though the lawsuit now failed to satisfy the requirements of original diversity jurisdiction. The defendant argued that the plaintiffs did not offer any evidence showing injury from Snapple’s “All Natural” labeling, and the court agreed. Analyzing each claim—violation of a state deceptive practices law, unjust enrichment, and breach of express and implied warranty—the court found that the plaintiffs failed to present reliable evidence that they…
A California resident has filed a putative class action against Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc., in federal court, alleging that the company has violated consumer protection laws in labeling and promoting its “Snapple® Acai Mixed Berry Red Tea Immunity” product because “no known clinical study . . . adequately supports Snapple’s claims.” Meaunrit v. Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, LLC, No. 10-5153 (N.D. Cal., filed November 12, 2010). Seeking to certify a class of all product purchasers, the named plaintiff alleges violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act, as well as breach of express warranty. She asks for restitution, disgorgement, damages, and attorney’s fees and costs in excess of $5 million. Plaintiff Julia Meaunrit and her counsel, Florida-licensed Howard Rubinstein, previously filed an unsuccessful class-action lawsuit in California against a food company alleging inadequate cooking instructions for its frozen pot pies. Details about that…
