Case 2:18-cv-01736-DOC-JPR Document 1 Filed 03/01/18 Page 1 of 73 Page ID #:1
`
` 
` 
`LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
`REBECCA A. PETERSON (241858)
`ROBERT K. SHELQUIST
`100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
`Minneapolis, MN 55401
`Telephone: (612) 339-6900
`Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
`E-mail: rshelquist@locklaw.com
`rapeterson@locklaw.com
`[Additional Counsel on Signature Page]
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`Case No.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR:
`(1) VIOLATIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA
`CONSUMER LEGAL REMEDIES ACT;
`(2) VIOLATIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA
`FALSE ADVERTISING LAW;
`(3) VIOLATIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA
`UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW;
`(4) VIOLATION OF THE MINNESOTA
`COMMERCIAL FEED LAW;
`(5) VIOLATION OF MINNESOTA
`PREVENTION OF CONSUMER FRAUD
`ACT;
`(6) VIOLATION OF MINNESOTA
`UNIFORM DECEPTIVE TRADES ACT;
`(7) VIOLATION OF MINNESOTA FALSE
`STATEMENT IN ADVERTISING ACT;
`(8) VIOLATION OF MINNESOTA
`PREVENTION OF CONSUMER FRAUD;
`(9) VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA
`DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE
`PRACTICES ACT
`(5) BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY;
`(6) BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY;
`(7) FRAUDULENT
`MISREPRESENTATION;
`(8)FRAUD BY OMISSION;
`(9) NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION;
`(10) UNJUST ENRICHMENT
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`))))))))))))
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`JENNIFER REITMAN,
`JENNIFER SONG, and
`RICHARD CLAPP individually
`and on behalf of a class of similarly
`situated individuals,
`
`
`
`V.
`
`CHAMPION PETFOODS USA,
`INC. and CHAMPION
`PETFOODS LP,
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS,
`
`DEFENDANTS.
`.
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-01736-DOC-JPR Document 1 Filed 03/01/18 Page 2 of 73 Page ID #:2
`
` 
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs Jennifer Reitman, Jennifer Song, and Richard Clapp, individually
`
`and on behalf of all others similarly situated, by and through their undersigned attorneys,
`
`bring this Class Action Complaint against Defendants Champion Petfoods USA, Inc. and
`
`Champion Petfoods LP (“Defendants”), for their negligent, reckless, and/or intentional
`
`practice of misrepresenting and failing to fully disclose the presence of heavy metals and
`
`toxins in their pet food sold throughout the United States. Plaintiffs seek both injunctive
`
`and monetary relief on behalf of the proposed Classes (defined below), including requiring
`
`full disclosure of all such substances in its marketing, advertising, and labeling and
`
`restoring monies to the members of the proposed Classes. Plaintiffs allege the following
`
`based upon personal knowledge as well as investigation by their counsel and as to all other
`
`matters, upon information and belief. Plaintiffs believe that substantial evidentiary support
`
`will exist for the allegations set forth herein after a reasonable opportunity for discovery.
`
`DEFENDANTS MARKET THEMSELVES AS ONLY SELLING PREMIUM DOG
`FOOD WITH THE SIMPLE MISSION OF “TO BE TRUSTED BY PET
`LOVERS”
`
`2.
`
`Defendants manufacture, market, advertise, label, distribute, and sell pet
`
`food under the brand names Acana and Orijen throughout the United States, including in
`
`this District.
`
`3.
`
`Defendants have created a niche in the pet food market by “making
`
`biologically ‘appropriate’ pet food- as close to what animals would eat in nature as
`
`possible- and producing it using fresh, natural ingredients…” They then charge a premium
`
`for this purportedly higher-quality food. The founder of the company, Peter Muhlenfeld,
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-01736-DOC-JPR Document 1 Filed 03/01/18 Page 3 of 73 Page ID #:3
`
` 
`
`said, “Our core family beliefs are [] entrenched in the company, and that is to make the
`
`very best food.” 1
`
`4.
`
`Defendants tout that “Biologically Appropriate™ ORIJEN represents a new
`
`class of food, designed to nourish dogs and cats according to their evolutionary adaptation
`
`to a diet rich and diverse in fresh meat and protein[]” and that it is “trusted by pet lovers
`
`everywhere.”2
`
`5.
`
`Defendants’ packaging and labels further emphasize fresh, quality, and
`
`properly sourced ingredients and even declares its dog food has “ingredients we love”:
`
`
`
`                                                            
`1 The Globe and Mail, “How once-tiny pet-food maker took a bite of the global market,” Jan. 16,
`2018,https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/small-business/canadian-
`powerhouse-export-your-dog-is-eating-it/article37605774/ (last visited Feb. 6, 2018).
`
`2 https://www.orijen.ca/us/
`
`- 2 -
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-01736-DOC-JPR Document 1 Filed 03/01/18 Page 4 of 73 Page ID #:4
`
` 
`
`6.
`
`Yet nowhere in the labeling, advertising, statements, warranties and/or
`
`packaging do Defendants disclose that the Contaminated Pet Foods (defined herein)
`
`contain levels of arsenic, mercury, lead, cadmium and/or BISPHENOL A (“BPA”) — all
`
`known to pose health risks to humans and animals, including dogs:3
`
`arsenic
`ug per
`kg
`3256.40
`
`bpa
`ug per
`kg
`32.50
`
`cadmium
`ug per
`kg
`113.00
`
`mercury
`ug per
`kg
`51.20
`
`lead
`ug per
`kg
`249.30
`
`3169.80
`
`39.50
`
`200.50
`
`54.90
`
`38.70
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Product Name
`Acana Regionals Wild
`Atlantic New England
`Fish and Fresh Greens
`Dry Dog Food
`Orijen Six Fish With
`New England
`Mackerel, Herring,
`Flounder, Redfish,
`Monkfish, Silver Hake
`Dry Dog Food
`Orijen Original
`Chicken, Turkey, Wild-
`Caught Fish, Eggs Dry
`Dog Food
`Orijen Regional Red
`Angus Beef, Boar,
`Goat, Lamb, Pork,
`Mackerel Dry Dog
`Food
`Acana Regionals
`Meadowland with
`Poultry, Freshwater
`Fish and Eggs Dry Dog
`Food
`Acana Regionals
`Appalachian Ranch
`with Red Meats and
`Freshwater Catfish Dry
`Dog Food
`Acana Regionals
`Grasslands with Lamb,
`                                                            
`3 All the below pet food collectively is referred to as the “Contaminated Dog Foods.”
`- 3 -
`
`907.60
`
`0.00
`
`93.20
`
`10.80
`
`489.80
`
`849.40
`
`43.60
`
`123.10
`
`21.40
`
`167.70
`
`846.40
`
`82.70
`
`37.50
`
`8.70
`
`489.00
`
`358.20
`
`82.90
`
`32.50
`
`14.90
`
`336.70
`
`262.80
`
`0.00
`
`30.60
`
`9.60
`
`305.00
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-01736-DOC-JPR Document 1 Filed 03/01/18 Page 5 of 73 Page ID #:5
`
` 
`
`Product Name
`Trout, and Game Bird
`Dry Dog Food
`Orijen Regional Red
`Angus Beef, Ranch
`Raised Lamb, Wild
`Boar, Pork, Bison Dry
`Dog Food
`Acana Singles Duck
`and Pear Formula Dry
`Dog Food
`Acana Singles Lamb
`and Apple Formula Dry
`Dog Food
`Acana Heritage Free-
`Run Poultry Formula
`Dry Dog Food
`Acana Heritage
`Freshwater Fish
`Formula Dry Dog Food
`
`
`arsenic
`ug per
`kg
`
`bpa
`ug per
`kg
`
`cadmium
`ug per
`kg
`
`mercury
`ug per
`kg
`
`lead
`ug per
`kg
`
`1066.50
`
`37.70
`
`62.10
`
`21.70
`
`138.50
`
`523.40 102.70
`
`30.90
`
`15.40
`
`537.40
`
`401.20
`
`73.20
`
`35.00
`
`3.20
`
`423.40
`
`292.90
`
`62.20
`
`27.80
`
`3.30
`
`290.20
`
`977.70
`
`0.00
`
`56.20
`
`27.40
`
`486.80
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7.
`
`Defendants warrant, promise, represent, label and/or advertise that the
`
`Contaminated Pet Foods are free of any heavy metals and/or chemicals like BPA by
`
`assuring the food represents an evolutionary diet that mirrors that of a wolf – free of
`
`anything “nature did not intend for your dog to eat:”
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-01736-DOC-JPR Document 1 Filed 03/01/18 Page 6 of 73 Page ID #:6
`
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8.
`
` Defendants assert that: “Virtually All Of The Nutrients In Acana Are
`
`Natural And Not Synthetic.”4 Defendants make a similar claim to the Orijen Dog Foods in
`
`maintaining that that the main source of any nutrient in Orijen are from a natural source.5
`
`9.
`
`Defendants further warrant, promise, represent, advertise and declare that the
`
`Contaminated Dog Foods are made with protein sources that are “Deemed fit for human
`
`consumption:”
`
`
`
`
`
`                                                            
`4 https://acana.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/DS-ACANA-Dog-Brochure-002.pdf
`
`5 https://www.orijen.ca/us/foods/dog-food/dry-dog-food/tundra/
`- 5 -
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-01736-DOC-JPR Document 1 Filed 03/01/18 Page 7 of 73 Page ID #:7
`
`
`
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`THE INCLUSION OF HEAVY METALS, BPA AND ANY OTHER CHEMICALS
`AT ANY LEVEL WOULD BE MATERIAL TO A REASONABLE CONSUMER
`BASED ON THE INHERENT AND KNOWN RISKS OF CONSUMPTION
`AND/OR EXPOSURE
`
`
`Heavy Metals
`
`
`10. Based on the risks associated with exposure to higher levels of arsenic, both
`
`the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and U.S. Food and Drug
`
`Administration (“FDA”) have set limits concerning the allowable limit of arsenic at 10
`
`parts per billion (“ppb”) for human consumption in apple juice (regulated by the FDA) and
`
`drinking water (regulating by the EPA).6
`
`                                                            
`6 The FDA has taken action based on consumer products exceeding this limit, including testing
`and sending warning letters to the manufacturers. See, e.g., Warning Letter from FDA to Valley
`
`- 6 -
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-01736-DOC-JPR Document 1 Filed 03/01/18 Page 8 of 73 Page ID #:8
`
` 
`
`11. Moreover, the FDA is considering limiting the action level for arsenic in rice
`
`cereals for infants to 100 ppb7
`
`12.
`
`The Contaminated Dog Foods also contain lead, which is another carcinogen
`
`and developmental toxin known to cause health problems. Exposure to lead in food builds
`
`up over time. Buildup can and has been scientifically demonstrated to lead to the
`
`development of chronic poisoning, cancer, developmental, and reproductive disorders, as
`
`well as serious injuries to the nervous system, and other organs and body systems.
`
`13.
`
`The Contaminated Dog Foods also contain mercury, which can cause
`
`damage to the cardiovascular system, nervous system, kidneys, and digestive tract in dogs.
`
`Continued exposure can also injure the inner surfaces of the digestive tract and abdominal
`
`cavity, causing lesions and inflammation. There have also been reports of lesions in the
`
`central nervous system (spinal cord and brain), kidneys, and renal glands.8
`
`14.
`
`Finally, the Contaminated Dog Foods contain cadmium which has been
`
`observed to cause anemia, liver disease, and nerve or brain damage in animals eating or
`
`drinking cadmium. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has determined
`
`that cadmium and cadmium compounds are known human carcinogens and the EPA has
`
`likewise determined that cadmium is a probable human carcinogen. 9
`
`                                                            
`Processing, Inc. (June 2, 2016), https://www.fda.gov/iceci/enforcementactions/warningletters
`/2016/ucm506526.htm.
`
`7 FDA, Draft Guidance for Industry: Inorganic Arsenic in Rice Cereals for Infants: Action Level
`(Apr. 2016), https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocuments
`RegulatoryInformation/UCM493152.pdf.
`8 https://wagwalking.com/condition/mercury-poisoning
`
`9 https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/phs/phs.asp?id=46&tid=15
`- 7 -
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-01736-DOC-JPR Document 1 Filed 03/01/18 Page 9 of 73 Page ID #:9
`
` 
`
`15. Despite the known risks of exposure to these heavy metals, Defendants have
`
`negligently, recklessly, and/or knowingly sold the Contaminated Dog Foods without
`
`disclosing they contain levels of arsenic, mercury, cadmium and lead to consumers like
`
`Plaintiffs.
`
`16. Additionally, Defendants knew or should have been aware that a consumer
`
`would be feeding the Contaminated Dog Foods multiple times each day to his or her dog,
`
`making it the main, if not only, source of food for the dog. This leads to repeated exposure
`
`of the heavy metals to the dog.
`
`17. Defendants have wrongfully and misleadingly advertised and sold the
`
`Contaminated Dog Foods without any label or warning indicating to consumers that these
`
`products contain heavy metals, or that these toxins can over time accumulate in the dog’s
`
`body to the point where poisoning, injury, and/or disease can occur.
`
`18. Defendants’ omissions are material, false, misleading, and reasonably likely
`
`to deceive the public. This is true especially in light of the long-standing campaign by
`
`Defendants to market the Contaminated Dog Foods as healthy and safe to induce
`
`consumers, such as Plaintiffs, to purchase the products. For instance, Defendants market
`
`the Contaminated Dog Foods as “Biologically Appropriate,” using “Fresh Regional
`
`Ingredients” comprised of 100 percent meat, poultry, fish, and/or vegetables, both on the
`
`products’ packaging and on Defendants’ websites.
`
`19. Moreover, Defendants devote significant web and packaging space to the
`
`marketing of their DogStar® Kitchens, which they tell consumers “are the most advanced
`
`pet food kitchens on earth, with standards that rival the human food processing industry.”
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-01736-DOC-JPR Document 1 Filed 03/01/18 Page 10 of 73 Page ID #:10
`
` 
`
`20. Defendants state on their website that the Orijen pet foods “feature[]
`
`unmatched and unique inclusions of meat, naturally providing everything your dog or cat
`
`needs to thrive.” Defendants further promise on the products’ packaging and on its website
`
`that its Orijen and Acana foods are “guaranteed” to “keep your dog happy, healthy, and
`
`strong.”
`
`21. Using such descriptions and promises makes Defendants' advertising
`
`campaign deceptive based on presence of heavy metals in the Contaminated Dog Foods.
`
`Reasonable consumers, like Plaintiffs, would consider the mere inclusion of heavy metals
`
`in the Contaminated Dog Foods as a material fact in considering what pet food to purchase.
`
`Defendants' above-referenced statements, representations, partial disclosures, and
`
`omissions are false, misleading, and crafted to deceive the public as they create an image
`
`that the Contaminated Dog Foods are healthy, safe, and free of contaminants such as
`
`arsenic and lead. Moreover, Defendants knew or should have reasonably expected that the
`
`presence of heavy metals in its Contaminated Dog Foods is something an average
`
`consumer would consider in purchasing dog food. Defendants' representations and
`
`omissions are false, misleading, and reasonably likely to deceive the public.
`
`22. Moreover, a reasonable consumer, such as Plaintiffs and other members of
`
`the Classes (as defined herein), would have no reason to not believe and/or anticipate that
`
`the Contaminated Dog Foods are "“Biologically Appropriate” foods that use “Fresh
`
`Regional Ingredients” consisting only of meat, poultry, fish, and vegetables. Non-
`
`disclosure and/or concealment of the toxins in the Contaminated Dog Foods coupled with
`
`the misrepresentations alleged herein by Defendants suggesting that the food provides
`
`complete health and is safe is intended to and does, in fact, cause consumers to purchase a
`- 9 -
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-01736-DOC-JPR Document 1 Filed 03/01/18 Page 11 of 73 Page ID #:11
`
` 
`
`product Plaintiffs and members of the classes not have bought if the true quality and
`
`ingredients were disclosed. As a result of these false or misleading statements and
`
`omissions, Defendants have generated substantial sales of the Contaminated Dog Foods.
`
`23.
`
`Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of all other similarly
`
`situated consumers within California, Minnesota and Florida who purchased the
`
`Contaminated Dog Foods, in order to cause the disclosure of the presence of heavy metals
`
`that pose a known risk to both humans and animals in the Contaminated Dog Foods, to
`
`correct the false and misleading perception Defendants have created in the minds of
`
`consumers that the Contaminated Dog Foods are high quality, safe, and healthy and to
`
`obtain redress for those who have purchased the Contaminated Dog Foods.
`
`Bisphenol A (“BPA”)
`
`24.
`
`The dangers of BPA in human food are recognized by the FDA, along with
`
`the California and Minnesota. For instance, manufacturers and wholesalers are prohibited
`
`from selling any children’s products that contain BPA and any infant formula, baby food,
`
`or toddler food stored in containers with intentionally added BPA
`
`25.
`
`Still, certain Contaminated Dog Foods are sold by Defendants that contain
`
`levels of BPA—an industrial chemical that “‘is an endocrine disruptor. It’s an industrial
`
`chemical that according to Medical News Today’ . . . interferes with the production,
`
`secretion, transport, action, function and elimination of natural hormones.’”10 BPA has
`
`                                                            
`10Dr. Karen Beeker, A Major Heads Up: Don't Feed This to Your Dog, Healthy Pets (Feb. 13,
`2017), https://healthypets.mercola.com/sites/healthypets/archive/2017/02/13/dogs-canned-food-
`dangers.aspx.
`
`- 10 -
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-01736-DOC-JPR Document 1 Filed 03/01/18 Page 12 of 73 Page ID #:12
`
` 
`
`been linked to various health issues, including reproductive disorders, heart disease,
`
`diabetes, cancer, and neurological problems.11
`
`26. Despite the presence of this harmful chemical, Defendants prominently
`
`warrant, claim, feature, represent, advertise, or otherwise market the Contaminated Dog
`
`Foods as made from “Biologically Appropriate” and “Fresh Regional Ingredients”
`
`consisting entirely of fresh meat, poultry, fish, and vegetables. Indeed, each bag
`
`prominently displays the percentage of these ingredients on the front.
`
`27. Defendants’ website and packaging also warrants, claims, features,
`
`represents, advertises, or otherwise markets that its products are natural. In fact, Orijen’s
`
`slogan is “Nourish as Nature Intended.”
`
`
`
`                                                            
`11 Christian Nordquist, Bisphenol A: How Does It Affect Our Health? Medical News Today (May
`24, 2017), https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/221205.php.
`- 11 -
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-01736-DOC-JPR Document 1 Filed 03/01/18 Page 13 of 73 Page ID #:13
`
` 
`
`28.
`
`In promoting their promise, warranty, claim, representation, advertisement,
`
`or otherwise marketing that the Contaminated Dog Foods are safe and pure, Defendants
`
`further assure its customers:
`
`Equipped with state-of-the-art fresh food processing technologies, our
`DogStar® kitchens feature 25,000 square feet of cooler space, capable of
`holding over 500,000 pounds of fresh local meats, fish and poultry, plus fresh
`whole local fruits and vegetables.
`Unmatched by any pet food maker, our ingredients are deemed fit for human
`consumption when they arrive at our kitchens fresh, bursting with goodness,
`and typically within 48 hours from when they were harvested.
`29.
`To this end, Defendants’ websites further warrants, claims, features,
`
`represents, advertises, or otherwise markets that the Contaminated Dog Foods are
`
`manufactured in such a way that would prevent BPA forming by closely monitoring
`
`temperatures and quality:
`
`“[O]ur unique Votator Heat Exchangers bring chilled fresh ingredients to
`room temperature without introducing water or steam, which enables us
`to add even more fresh meats into our foods.”
`“Referred to as ‘the most significant preconditioning development for
`extrusion cooking in the last 20 years,’ our High Intensity Preconditioners
`were custom-built for DogStar®, feeding fresh meats from the Votators
`to Extruders at rates previously unheard of, and without high
`temperatures.”
`“At the heart of our kitchens is a twin thermal extruder which is fed fresh
`ingredients from our High Intensity Preconditioner.
`The first of its kind in North America, it took 11 months to build, and
`features custom steam injection to enable very high fresh meat inclusions
`and a gentle cooking process which helps further reduce
`the
`carbohydrates in our foods and preserves their natural goodness.”
`30.
`Thus, Defendants engaged in deceptive advertising and labeling practice by
`
`expressly warranting, claiming, stating, featuring, representing, advertising, or otherwise
`
`marketing on Acana and Orijen labels and related websites that the Contaminated Dog
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-01736-DOC-JPR Document 1 Filed 03/01/18 Page 14 of 73 Page ID #:14
`
` 
`
`Foods are natural, fit for human consumption, fit for canine consumption, and made from
`
`“Biologically Appropriate” and “Fresh Regional Ingredients” consisting entirely of fresh
`
`meat, poultry, fish, and vegetables when they contain the non-naturally occurring chemical
`
`BPA.
`
`31. Based on these false representations, Defendants charge a premium, knowing
`
`that the claimed natural make-up of the Contaminated Dog Foods (as well as all of the
`
`other alleged false and/or misleading representations discussed herein) is something an
`
`average consumer would consider as a reason in picking a more expensive dog food. By
`
`negligently and/or deceptively representing, marketing, and advertising the Contaminated
`
`Dog Foods as natural, fit for human consumption, fit for canine consumption, natural, and
`
`made from “Biologically Appropriate” and “Fresh Regional Ingredients” consisting
`
`entirely of fresh meat, poultry, fish, and vegetables, Defendants wrongfully capitalized on,
`
`and reaped enormous profits from, consumers’ strong preference for natural pet food
`
`products.
`
`32.
`
`Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of all other similarly
`
`situated consumers within California, Minnesota and Florida who purchased the
`
`Contaminated Dog Foods, in order to cause the disclosure of the presence of BPA that pose
`
`a known risk to both humans and animals in the Contaminated Dog Foods, to correct the
`
`false and misleading perception Defendants have created in the minds of consumers that
`
`the Contaminated Dog Foods are high quality, safe, and healthy and to obtain redress for
`
`those who have purchased the Contaminated Dog Foods.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-01736-DOC-JPR Document 1 Filed 03/01/18 Page 15 of 73 Page ID #:15
`
` 
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`33.
`
`This Court has original jurisdiction over all causes of action asserted herein
`
`under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(2), because the matter in
`
`controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000 exclusive of interest and costs and
`
`more than two-thirds of the Classes reside in states other than the states in which
`
`Defendants are citizens and in which this case is filed, and therefore any exemptions to
`
`jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1332(d) do not apply.
`
`34. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391, because Plaintiff
`
`Reitman resides and suffered injury as a result of Defendants' acts in this district, many of
`
`the acts and transactions giving rise to this action occurred in this district, Defendants
`
`conduct substantial business in this district, Defendants have intentionally availed
`
`themselves of the laws and markets of this district, and Defendants are subject to personal
`
`jurisdiction in this district.
`
`PARTIES
`
`35.
`
`Plaintiff Jennifer Reitman (“Plaintiff Reitman”) is, and at all times relevant
`
`hereto has been, a citizen of the state of California. Plaintiff Reitman purchased the
`
`following Contaminated Dog Foods for her two dogs, a German shepherd mix named
`
`Goliath and a Husky named Alaska: Orijen Six Fish With New England Mackerel, Herring,
`
`Flounder, Redfish, Monkfish, Silver Hake Dry Dog Food, Acana Singles Lamb and Apple
`
`Formula Dry Dog Food, Acana Singles Duck and Pear Formula Dry Dog Food and Acana
`
`Regionals Grasslands with Lamb, Trout, and Game Bird Dry Dog Food. Plaintiff purchased
`
`the largest bag available of the Contaminated Dog Foods once a month on average between
`
`- 14 -
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-01736-DOC-JPR Document 1 Filed 03/01/18 Page 16 of 73 Page ID #:16
`
` 
`
`January 2012 and approximately July 2016. In 2016, Plaintiff began cooking for her dogs
`
`because her dogs were getting sick from the dog food she was feeding them. Since this
`
`change, her dogs have not been sick. She would generally buy the dog food at Bruno’s in
`
`Venice, California. Prior to purchasing the Contaminated Dog Foods, Plaintiff Reitman
`
`saw the products the nutritional claims on the packaging, which she relied on in deciding
`
`to purchase the Contaminated Dog Foods. During that time, based on the false and
`
`misleading claims, warranties, representations, advertisements and other marketing by
`
`Defendants, Plaintiff Reitman was unaware that the Contaminated Dog Foods contained
`
`any level of heavy metals, chemicals or toxins and would not have purchased the food if
`
`that was fully disclosed. Plaintiff Reitman was injured by paying a premium for the
`
`Contaminated Dog Foods that have no or de minimis value based on the presence of the
`
`alleged heavy metals, chemicals and toxins.
`
`36.
`
`Plaintiff Jennifer Song (“Plaintiff Song”) is, and at all times relevant hereto
`
`has been, a citizen of the state of Minnesota. Plaintiff Song purchased the following
`
`Contaminated Dog Foods and fed the food to her 12-year-old pug, Suzy, and a recently
`
`rescued 6-year-old Pomeranian mix, Bee: Orijen Six Fish With New England Mackerel,
`
`Herring, Flounder, Redfish, Monkfish, Silver Hake Dry Dog Food; Orijen Regional Red
`
`with Angus Beef, Wild Boar, Boer Goat, Romney Lamb, Yorkshire Pork & Wild Mackerel,
`
`Orijen Regional Red Angus Beef, Ranch Raised Lamb, Wild Boar, Pork, Bison Dry Dog
`
`Food, Acana Regionals Grasslands with Lamb, Trout, and Game Bird Dry Dog Food,
`
`Acana Regionals Wild Atlantic New England Fish and Fresh Greens Dry Dog Food, Acana
`
`Regionals Meadowland with Poultry, Freshwater Fish and Eggs Dry Dog Food, Acana
`
`Regionals Appalachian Ranch with Red Meats and Freshwater Catfish Dry Dog Food and
`- 15 -
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-01736-DOC-JPR Document 1 Filed 03/01/18 Page 17 of 73 Page ID #:17
`
` 
`
`Orijen Original Chicken, Turkey, Wild-Caught Fish, Eggs Dry Dog Food. Plaintiff Song
`
`began purchasing the Contaminated Dog Foods on or around November 6, 2016 and
`
`continued to purchase approximately two 4.5-pound bags monthly (priced at around $22.00
`
`per bag) until approximately February 2018 when she discovered that the food was
`
`contaminated. Plaintiff purchased the Contaminated Dog Foods from Chuck & Don’s in
`
`Minnesota. Prior to purchasing the Contaminated Dog Foods, Plaintiff saw the products
`
`the nutritional claims on the packaging, which she relied on in deciding to purchase the
`
`Contaminated Dog Foods. During that time, based on the false and misleading claims,
`
`warranties, representations, advertisements and other marketing by Defendants, Plaintiff
`
`was unaware that the Contaminated Dog Foods contained any level of heavy metals,
`
`chemicals or toxins and would not have purchased the food if that was fully disclosed.
`
`Plaintiff Song was injured by paying a premium for the Contaminated Dog Foods that have
`
`no or de minimis value based on the presence of the alleged heavy metals, chemicals and
`
`toxins.
`
`37.
`
`Plaintiff Richard Clapp (“Plaintiff”) is a citizen of the state of Florida.
`
`Plaintiff Clapp purchased the following Contaminated Dog Foods for his two dogs, a
`
`English Cocker Spaniel named Minnie and an English Springer Spaniel named Gertie:
`
`Orijen Original Chicken, Turkey, Wild-Caught Fish, Eggs Dry Dog Food, Acana Heritage
`
`Free-Run Poultry Formula Dry Dog Food and Acana Heritage Freshwater Fish Formula
`
`Dry Dog Food. Plaintiff Clapp purchased the Contaminated Dog Foods approximately
`
`every two months staring approximately in January 2010 until February 2018. Plaintiff
`
`Clapp would purchase the Contaminated Dog Foods from various stores, including Treat
`
`Play Love in North Dakota, Amazon and other local pet stores. Prior to purchasing the
`- 16 -
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-01736-DOC-JPR Document 1 Filed 03/01/18 Page 18 of 73 Page ID #:18
`
` 
`
`Contaminated Dog Foods, Plaintiff saw the products the nutritional claims on the
`
`packaging, which he relied on in deciding to purchase the Contaminated Dog Foods.
`
`During that time, based on the false and misleading claims, warranties, representations,
`
`advertisements and other marketing by Defendants, Plaintiff was unaware that the
`
`Contaminated Dog Foods contained any level of heavy metals, chemicals or toxins and
`
`would not have purchased the food if that was fully disclosed. Plaintiff Clapp was injured
`
`by paying a premium for the Contaminated Dog Foods that have no or de minimis value
`
`based on the presence of the alleged heavy metals, chemicals and toxins.
`
`38. As the result of Defendants’ negligent, reckless, and/or knowingly deceptive
`
`conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiffs were injured when they paid the purchase price or a
`
`price premium for the Contaminated Dog Foods that did not deliver what was promised.
`
`They paid the premium price on the assumption that the labeling of the Contaminated Dog
`
`Foods was accurate and that it was healthy, superior quality, natural, and safe for dogs to
`
`ingest. Plaintiffs would not have paid this money had they known that the Contaminated
`
`Dog Foods contained any levels of the heavy metals, chemicals and/or toxins. Plaintiffs
`
`were further injured because the Contaminated Dog Foods that have no or de minimis value
`
`based on the presence of the alleged heavy metals, chemicals and toxins. Damages can be
`
`calculated through expert testimony at trial. Further, should Plaintiffs encounter the
`
`Contaminated Dog Foods in the future, they could not rely on the truthfulness of the
`
`packaging, absent corrective changes to the packaging and advertising of the Contaminated
`
`Dog Foods.
`
`39. Defendant Champion Petfoods USA Inc. (“Champion USA”) is incorporated
`
`in Delaware. Its headquarters and principal place of business, as of March 2016, is located
`- 17 -
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-01736-DOC-JPR Document 1 Filed 03/01/18 Page 19 of 73 Page ID #:19
`
` 
`
`at 12871 Bowling Green Road, Auburn, KY 42206. Prior to that, its headquarters and
`
`principal place of business were located at 11403-186 St NW, Edmonton, Alberta T5S
`
`2W6.
`
`40. Defendant Champion Petfoods LP (“Champion Canada”) is a Canadian
`
`limited partnership with its headquarters and principal place of business located at 11403-
`
`186 St NW, Edmonton, Alberta T5S 2W6. Defendant Champion Canada wholly owns,
`
`operates, and/or controls Defendant Champion USA.
`
`41. Defendants formulate, develop, manufacture, label, distribute, market,
`
`advertise, and sell the Contaminated Dog Foods under the dog food brand names Orijen
`
`and Acana throughout the United States, including in this District, during Class Period
`
`(defined below). The advertising, labeling, and packaging for the Contaminated Dog
`
`Foods, relied upon by Plaintiffs, was prepared, reviewed, and/or approved by Defendants
`
`and their agents, and was disseminated by Defendants and their agents through marketing,
`
`advertising, packaging, and labeling that contained the misrepresentations alleged herein.
`
`The marketing, advertising, packaging and labeling for the Contaminated Dog Foods was
`
`designed to encourage consumers to purchase the Contaminated Dog Foods and reasonably
`
`misled the reasonable consumer, i.e., Plaintiffs and the Classes, into purchasing the
`
`Contaminated Dog Foods. Defendants own, manufacture, and distribute the Contaminated
`
`Dog Foods, and created, allowed, negligently oversaw, and/or authorized the unlawful,
`
`fraudulent, unfair, misleading, and/or deceptive labeling and a