`
`
`
` 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MILSTEIN JACKSON
`FAIRCHILD & WADE, LLP
`
`Gillian L. Wade, State Bar No. 229124
`gwade@mjfwlaw.com
`
`
`
`Sara D. Avila, State Bar No. 263213
`
`savila@mjfwlaw.com
`
`
`
`Marc A. Castaneda, State Bar No. 299001
`mcastaneda@mjfwlaw.com
`10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 1400
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`Tel: (310) 396-9600
`Fax: (310) 396-9635
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`
`AMY LORENTZEN, on behalf of herself
`and all others similarly situated,
`
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`THE KROGER CO., an Ohio corporation;
`and DOES 1 – 10, inclusive
`
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`Case No. 2:20-cv-06754
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`1. Violations of the Consumer Legal
`Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. C. §§ 1750, et
`seq.
`2. Violations of the False and Misleading
`Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. C.
`§§ 17500, et seq.
`3. Violations of Unfair Competition Law,
`‘Unfair’ and ‘Fraudulent’ Prongs,
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. C. §§ 17200, et seq.
`4. Violations of Unfair Competition Law,
`“Unlawful” Prong, Cal. Bus. & Prof.
`C. §§ 17200, et seq.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-06754-RGK-RAO Document 1 Filed 07/28/20 Page 2 of 21 Page ID #: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
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Amy Lorentzen (“Plaintiff”), through undersigned counsel, brings this
`class action against Defendant The Kroger Co. (“Defendant” or “Kroger”) based on
`Defendant’s false and deceptive advertising and labeling of its Kroger ground coffee
`Products. Plaintiff alleges the following based upon the investigation of counsel and on
`information and belief, except as to allegations pertaining to Plaintiff, which are based
`upon personal knowledge.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`This class action seeks to remedy Defendant’s widespread false and
`1.
`deceptive advertising as to its Kroger ground coffee products (the “Products”). Using
`packaging and labeling which has been identical or nearly identical, Defendant
`systematically overstates the number of cups of coffee its Products can make, to the
`detriment of consumers who are deprived of the benefit of the bargain.
`The scheme is straightforward—Defendant sells the Products with the
`2.
`representation they contain enough ground coffee to yield a specific number of servings
`(e.g., 225 cups). This representation is prominently displayed on the front panel of the
`coffee canister. However, if the back-panel brewing instructions are followed, the
`canister produces significantly less than what is advertised on the front panel.
`Plaintiff purchased Defendant’s Products because she
`reasonably
`3.
`believed—based on Defendant’s representations—that they contained enough coffee to
`make the specified number of servings. However, they do not. Tests performed on the
`Products have shown that Defendant uniformly and systematically misrepresents the
`serving yield of its Products.
`Had Plaintiff known the truth (i.e., that the Products do not contain enough
`4.
`coffee to make the specified number of servings), she would have paid less for them, or
`would not have purchased them at all. As a result, Plaintiff has been deceived and has
`suffered economic injury.
` Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and the Class
`5.
`for equitable relief and to recover restitution for: (i) violation of the Consumers Legal
`
`- 2 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-06754-RGK-RAO Document 1 Filed 07/28/20 Page 3 of 21 Page ID #:3
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`Remedies Act, Cal Bus & Prof Code §§ 1750, et seq., (ii) violation of the False
`Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, et seq., (iii) violation of the “Unfair”
`and “Fraudulent” Prongs of the Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
`§17200, et seq., and (iv) violation of the “Unlawful” Prong of the Unfair Competition
`Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200, et seq.
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`This action is brought pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C.
`6.
`§ 1332 (“CAFA”). Jurisdiction is vested in this Court in that the amount in controversy
`exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of interests and costs, and includes a proposed plaintiff
`class in which more than two-thirds of its members, on the one hand, and Defendant, on
`the other, are citizens of different states.
`The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant has
`7.
`sufficient minimum contacts in California, or otherwise intentionally availed itself of
`the markets within California, through the sale of the Products in California and to
`California consumers
`Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), because a
`8.
`substantial part of the events or giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this District.
`Plaintiff resides in this District and purchased the Products in this District.
`PARTIES
`Plaintiff Amy Lorentzen is a resident of Manhattan Beach, California.
`9.
`Plaintiff purchased at least one Kroger ground coffee product during the Class Period.1
`Most recently, Plaintiff purchased Defendant’s Kroger Medium Roast Supreme Blend
`Ground Coffee 29oz from a Ralphs store in Manhattan Beach, California. Plaintiff read
`the Product’s label, which stated that one canister would produce 225 servings of coffee
`before purchasing the Product. Plaintiff relied on this representation when she
`purchased Defendant’s Medium Roast Supreme Blend Ground Coffee for her own
`
`
`1 The term “Class Period” as used herein shall mean since July 28, 2016.
`
`- 3 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-06754-RGK-RAO Document 1 Filed 07/28/20 Page 4 of 21 Page ID #:4
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`personal household use. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff at the time of her purchase, the
`canister did not contain enough coffee grounds to produce the number of servings
`promised on the Product’s front label.
`10. Plaintiff would not have purchased the Product, or would not have paid as
`much as she did, had she known that Defendant misrepresented the amount of servings
`the Product could produce.
`11. Defendant The Kroger Co. is an Ohio corporation with its principle place
`of business in Cincinnati, Ohio. The Kroger Co. is the largest supermarket chain in the
`United States and operates various grocery stores throughout the country, including
`California. The Kroger Co. is responsible for the development, manufacturing,
`packaging, advertising, distribution, and sale of the Products.
`12. Plaintiff does not know the true names or capacities of the persons or
`entities sued herein as Does 1-10, inclusive, and therefore sues such defendants by such
`fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon such information and
`belief alleges, that each of the Doe defendants is, in some manner, legally responsible
`for the damages suffered by Plaintiff and the Class Members as alleged herein. Plaintiff
`will amend her Complaint to set forth the true names and capacities of these defendants
`when they have been ascertained, along with appropriate charging allegations, as may
`be necessary.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`13. Defendant sells the Products at its retail locations across the United States,
`including California. The Products include but are not limited to the following varieties:
`Kroger Medium Roast Special Roast Ground Coffee 29oz, Kroger Medium Roast
`Supreme Blend Ground Coffee 29oz, Kroger Medium Roast Secret Blend Ground
`Coffee 30.5oz, Kroger Dark Roast French Roast Ground Coffee 24oz, Kroger Mild
`Roast Breakfast Blend Ground Coffee 24oz, Kroger Medium Dark Roast 100%
`Columbian Ground Coffee 24oz, Kroger Medium Dark Roast 100% Columbian Ground
`Coffee 11.5oz, and Kroger Medium Roast Decaf Classic Ground Coffee 25 oz.
`
`- 4 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-06754-RGK-RAO Document 1 Filed 07/28/20 Page 5 of 21 Page ID #: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
`
`
`
`
`
`14. Defendant represents on the packaging of each of the Products that they
`contain enough ground coffee to make up to a specified number of servings. For
`example, Defendant prominently states on the front panel of its Kroger Mild Roast
`Breakfast Blend Ground Coffee 24oz: “MAKES ABOUT 185 CUPS” (i.e., 185
`servings).
`15. Representative images of the front panel of the canisters of some of the
`Products are depicted below:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-06754-RGK-RAO Document 1 Filed 07/28/20 Page 6 of 21 Page ID #: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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16. Defendant places a materially identical representation on the front panel of
`all the Products, although the number of represented servings varies based on the size
`of the Product.
`Instructions on the back panel of the Products direct consumers to use the
`17.
`following measurements: “[o]ne rounded tablespoon of coffee for each 6 fl oz. of cold
`water” or “1/2 cup of coffee for every 10 servings.”
`
`- 6 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-06754-RGK-RAO Document 1 Filed 07/28/20 Page 7 of 21 Page ID #:7
`
`18. However, as stated in ¶¶ 1-2 above, these instructions do not produce the
`number of servings of coffee prominently advertised on the Products.
`19. For example, Plaintiff purchased Defendant’s Kroger Medium Roast
`Supreme Blend Ground Coffee 29oz. The front label of the canister prominently states:
`“MAKES ABOUT 225 CUPS” (i.e., 225 servings). Instructions on the back panel of
`the canister direct consumers to use the following measurements: “[o]ne rounded
`tablespoon of coffee for each 6 fl oz. of cold water.” However, if this instruction is
`followed, the canister only produces approximately 110 servings, 115 short of what is
`advertised on the front label.
`20. Tests performed on the Products, including the product Plaintiff purchased,
`reveal that Defendant uniformly and systematically misrepresents how many cups of
`coffee its Products are capable of brewing. When following the single serving
`instructions, the Products’ tests consistently resulted in a 47-54% deficiency in the total
`number of servings per canister. The results of these tests are set forth below:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Product Name
`Kroger Medium Roast
`Special Roast Ground Coffee
`29oz
`Kroger Medium Roast
`Supreme Blend Ground
`Coffee 29oz
`Kroger Medium Roast Secret
`Blend Ground Coffee 30.5oz
`Kroger Dark Roast French
`Roast Ground Coffee 24oz
`Kroger Mild Roast Breakfast
`Blend Ground Coffee 24oz
`Kroger Medium Dark Roast
`100% Columbian Ground
`Coffee 24oz
`
`Servings
`Claimed
`per Can
`
`Actual
`Servings
`Measured
`
`Actual
`Servings
`Missing
`
`Overall
`Servings
`Missing
`
`225
`
`225
`
`235
`
`185
`
`185
`
`185
`
`119
`
`110
`
`120
`
`92
`
`98
`
`96
`
`106
`
`115
`
`115
`
`93
`
`87
`
`89
`
`47%
`
`51%
`
`49%
`
`50%
`
`47%
`
`48%
`
`- 7 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-06754-RGK-RAO Document 1 Filed 07/28/20 Page 8 of 21 Page ID #:8
`
`Servings
`Claimed
`per Can
`
`Actual
`Servings
`Measured
`
`Actual
`Servings
`Missing
`
`Overall
`Servings
`Missing
`
`Product Name
`Kroger Medium Dark Roast
`100% Columbian Ground
`Coffee 11.5oz
`Kroger Medium Roast Decaf
`Classic Ground Coffee 25oz
`
`21. Defendant’s labeling, advertising and marketing of the Products are false
`and misleading because a reasonable consumer, like Plaintiff, expect that if the
`Product’s back-panel brewing instructions are followed, the canister will yield the
`number of servings prominently displayed on the front panel. However the above-
`referenced testing confirms this is not the case.
`22. Plaintiff purchased Kroger Medium Roast Supreme Blend Ground Coffee
`relying on Defendant’s representations about the number of servings on the product’s
`packaging.
`23. Plaintiff did not know, and had no reason to know, that the Product’s
`labeling overstates the number of servings of coffee it is able to make. Indeed, Plaintiff
`was unable to measure or calculate how many servings the Products can make at the
`time of purchase.
`24. Defendant knew or should have known that Plaintiff and other consumers,
`in purchasing the Products, would rely on Defendant’s serving size representations.
`Nevertheless, Defendant has engaged in, and continues to engage in, an advertising and
`marketing campaign that misleads and lures consumers into purchasing Products they
`would not have otherwise purchased.
`25. Defendant’s advertising claims are false, misleading and deceptive because
`Defendant willfully misrepresents the number of coffee servings the Products will
`produce.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`90
`
`195
`
`42
`
`92
`
`48
`
`103
`
`54%
`
`53%
`
`- 8 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-06754-RGK-RAO Document 1 Filed 07/28/20 Page 9 of 21 Page ID #:9
`
`
`
`26. Defendant’s false, misleading and deceptive representations—including
`the number of cups of coffee each Product is capable of producing—are material in that
`a reasonable person would attach importance to such information in deciding to
`purchase the Products.
`27. As a direct result of Defendant’s false, misleading and deceptive
`representations, Defendant injured Plaintiff and members of the Class in that they were
`deprived of the benefit of the bargain because the Products they purchased had less
`value than what Defendant represented.
`28. Consequently, Plaintiff and Class members suffered injury in fact and lost
`money or property as a result of Defendant’s wrongful conduct.
`CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`29. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23,
`on behalf of the following Class:
`
`
`All persons in the State of California who purchased one or
`more of the Products since July 28, 2016 for personal use
`and not for resale (the “Class”).
`
`30. Subject to additional information obtained through further investigation
`and discovery, the foregoing definition of the Class may be expanded or narrowed by
`amendment to the complaint, or narrowed at class certification.
`31. Excluded from the Class are Defendant, its affiliates, subsidiaries, agents,
`board members, directors, officers, and/or employees, counsel for the Plaintiff in this
`matter, and the Court personnel in this matter.
`32. Members of the Class were uniformly impacted by and exposed to
`Defendant’s misconduct. Accordingly, this Complaint is suitable for class-wide
`resolution.
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-06754-RGK-RAO Document 1 Filed 07/28/20 Page 10 of 21 Page ID #: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
`
`
`
`
`
`33. This action is brought and properly may be maintained as a Class action
`under the provisions of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a)(l)-(4) and 23(b)(l), (b)(2)
`or (b)(3), and satisfies the requirements thereof.
`Rule 23(a) Requirements
`34. The Class satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy,
`predominance, and superiority requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)
`and (b)(3).
`35. Numerosity: The proposed Class is so numerous that joinder of all
`members would be impracticable. Defendant’s products can be found at over 2,700
`retail location throughout the United States. The precise number of class members is at
`least in the tens of thousands, but the numbers are clearly more than can be consolidated
`in one complaint such that it would be impractical for each member to bring suit
`individually. Plaintiff does not anticipate any difficulties in the management of the
`action as a class action.
`36. Commonality: Common questions of law and fact predominate in this
`matter because Defendant’s conduct towards the members of the Class is identical.
`Defendant uniformly, through retail locations, supplied and sold the Products to the
`Class.
`37. Plaintiff shares a common interest with all members of the putative Class
`in the objectives of the action and the relief sought.
`38. Because the Products’ packaging and labeling and Defendant’s marketing
`and deceptive conduct was uniform, the material elements of Plaintiff’s claims and
`those of class members are subject to common proof, and the outcome of Plaintiff’s
`actions will be dispositive for the Class.
`39. Questions of law and fact that are common to the Class include, but are not
`limited to, the following:
`(a) Whether Defendant made material misrepresentations and/or omissions
`concerning the serving yield in the Products;
`
`- 10 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-06754-RGK-RAO Document 1 Filed 07/28/20 Page 11 of 21 Page ID #:11
`
`
`
`(b) Whether Defendant’s packaging for the Products is misleading and
`deceptive;
`(c) Whether Defendant’s advertising for the Products is misleading and
`deceptive;
`(d) Whether Defendant’s representations and/or omissions concerning the
`Products were likely to deceive a reasonable consumers;
`(e) Whether Defendant violated the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal Bus
`& Prof Code §§ 1750, et seq.;
`(f) Whether Defendant violated the False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof.
`Code § 17500, et seq.;
`(g) Whether Defendant violated the Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. &
`Prof. Code §17200, et seq.; and
`(h) Whether Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to restitution, and/or injunctive
`relief.
`40. Typicality: Plaintiff is a member of the Class she seeks to represent.
`Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the Class members’ claims because she purchased at
`least one of the Products and was exposed to Defendant’s conduct.
`41. Adequacy of Representation: Plaintiff is an adequate representative of
`the Class she seeks to represent and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of
`the Class. Plaintiff is committed to the vigorous prosecution of this action and has
`retained competent counsel, experienced in litigation of this nature, to represent her and
`the Class. There are no conflicts between Plaintiff and the unnamed class members.
`Plaintiff anticipates no difficulty in the management of this litigation as a class action.
`42. To prosecute this case, Plaintiff has chosen the undersigned law firm,
`which is very experienced in class action litigation and has the financial and legal
`resources to meet the substantial costs and legal issues associated with this type of
`litigation.
`43. Specifically, the undersigned counsel, Milstein, Jackson, Fairchild &
`Wade, LLP, has extensive experience in complex consumer fraud and class action
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-06754-RGK-RAO Document 1 Filed 07/28/20 Page 12 of 21 Page ID #:12
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`litigation and have adequate financial resources to ensure that the interests of the
`prospective class will not be harmed.
`Requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)
`44. The questions of law or fact common to Plaintiff and each Class member’s
`claims predominate over any questions of law or fact affecting only individual members
`of the Class. All claims by Plaintiff and the unnamed Class members are based on
`Defendant’s false and deceptive marketing on the packaging of the Products.
`45. Common issues predominate when, as here, liability can be determined on
`a class-wide basis, even if there may be some individualized damage determinations.
`46. Superiority. A class action is superior to individual actions in part
`because of the non-exhaustive factors listed below:
`Joinder of all class members would create extreme hardship and
`a.
`inconvenience for class members as they reside throughout the state;
`Individual claims by class members are impractical because the
`costs to pursue individual claims may exceed the value of what any
`one class member has at stake. As a result, individual class
`members may have no interest in prosecuting and controlling
`separate actions;
`There are no known individual class members who are interested in
`individually controlling the prosecution of separate actions;
`The interests of justice will be well served by resolving the common
`disputes of potential class members in one forum;
`Individual suits would not be cost effective or economically
`maintainable as individual actions; and
`This action is manageable as a class action.
`f.
`47. The Class is not so large that they would be unmanageable, and no
`difficulties are foreseen providing notice to individual claimants. Class members can be
`readily identified using sales records, production records, and other information kept by
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`- 12 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-06754-RGK-RAO Document 1 Filed 07/28/20 Page 13 of 21 Page ID #:13
`
`
`Defendant in the usual course of business and within its control. Therefore, both the
`membership of the Class and the amount of individual restitution will be readily
`ascertainable.
`48. Notice: Class members can easily self-identify whether they have
`purchased the Product and may also be identified by business records of the retail
`outlets who sell the Product from customer loyalty and rewards programs. Publication
`notice may be given to Class members in nationwide publications, through the creation
`of a public website, and other online mediums, such as Facebook, Twitter and other
`methods Defendant uses to advertise Defendant’s Products.
`49. Plaintiff also satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2). Specifically,
`Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class,
`thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief
`with respect to the Class.
`
`
`CAUSES OF ACTION
`
`
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`Violations of Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA)
`California Civil Code §§ 1750, et seq.
`50. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each of the preceding allegations
`as if fully set forth herein.
`51. Plaintiff brings this claim under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies
`Act (“CLRA”), Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et seq., on behalf of herself and the Class, all of
`whom were subject to Defendant’s above-described unlawful conduct.
`52. The CLRA prohibits "unfair methods of competition and unfair or
`deceptive acts or practices undertaken by any person in a transaction intended to result
`or which results in the sale or lease of goods or services to any consumer." Cal. Civ.
`Code § 1770(a).
`53. The CLRA is "liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying
`purposes, which are to protect consumers against unfair and deceptive business
`
`
`
`
`
`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 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-06754-RGK-RAO Document 1 Filed 07/28/20 Page 14 of 21 Page ID #: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
`
`
`
`
`practices . . . ." Cal. Civ. Code § 1760.
`54. Plaintiff has standing to pursue this claim as she has suffered injury in fact
`and lost money as a result of Defendant’s actions as set forth herein.
`55. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff was and is a “consumer” as defined
`in California Civil Code § 1761(d), and Defendant was and is a “supplier or seller” as
`defined by the CLRA.
`56. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant was and is a “person” as defined in
`California Civil Code § 1761(c).
`57. At all times relevant hereto, the Products were and are “goods” as defined
`in California Civil Code § 1761(a).
`58. At all relevant times hereto, Defendant’s conduct as described herein
`involves consumer “transactions” as defined in California Civil Code § 1761(e).
`59. As alleged more fully above, Defendant falsely represented to Plaintiff and
`other members of the Class that the Products contain enough ground coffee to make up
`to the specified number of servings.
`60. Further, Defendant concealed from and failed to disclose to Plaintiff and
`the Class that the Products will not yield the number of servings represented if the
`instructions are followed.
`61. Defendant thus violated, and continues to violate the CLRA by engaging
`in the following practices proscribed by California Civil Code § 1770(a) in consumer
`transactions with Plaintiff and the Class, which were intended to result in, and did result
`in, the sale of the Products to Plaintiff and the Class:
`In violation of California Civil Code §1770(a)(5), Defendant
`a.
`represented the Product as having characteristics, ingredients, uses,
`or benefits which it does not have;
`In violation of California Civil Code §1770(a)(7), Defendant
`representing that the Product is of a particular standard, quality, or
`grade when it is of another; and
`
`b.
`
`- 14 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-06754-RGK-RAO Document 1 Filed 07/28/20 Page 15 of 21 Page ID #: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
`
`
`
`
`
`c.
`
`In violation of California Civil Code §1770(a)(9), Defendant
`advertised its Product with the intent not to sell it as advertised.
`62. Defendant’s representations and omissions were uniformly made on the
`Product packaging and would be important to reasonable consumers in their purchasing
`decision.
`63. Plaintiff relied on Defendant’s misrepresentations and omissions and
`would not have purchased the Products, or would have paid less than she had, if she
`had known they did not contain enough ground coffee to make up to the specified
`number of servings.
`64. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s misrepresentations and
`omissions, Defendant has caused injury to Plaintiff and continues to cause injury to
`members of the Class who were misled into purchasing the Products on the belief they
`contained enough ground coffee to make up to the specified number of servings.
`65. Defendant’s actions as described herein were done with the intention of
`deceiving Plaintiff and the Class and depriving them of their legal rights and money.
`66. Defendant’s actions as described herein were done with conscious
`disregard of Plaintiff’s and Class members’ rights and Defendant has acted wantonly
`and maliciously in their concealment of the same.
`67. Defendant’s wrongful business practices constituted, and constitute, a
`continuing course of conduct in violation of the CLRA since Defendant continues to
`falsely and deceptively advertise and sell the Products.
`68. Plaintiff is concurrently filing the declaration of venue required by
`California Civil Code § 1780(d).
`69. Pursuant to California Civil Code § 1780(a), Plaintiff seeks injunctive
`relief, including compelling Defendant to recall the Products and permanently refrain
`from labeling, selling, marketing and advertising the Products in the future with the
`misrepresentations and material omissions alleged herein. Plaintiff and members of the
`Class shall be irreparably harmed if such an order is not granted.
`
`- 15 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-06754-RGK-RAO Document 1 Filed 07/28/20 Page 16 of 21 Page ID #: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
`
`
`
`
`
`70. For example, Plaintiff may be harmed again in the future because she
`wants to purchase Defendant’s Products in the future. However, without injunctive
`relief Plaintiff would not be able to know or trust that Defendant will truthfully label
`the Products and would be likely to be misled again.
`71. Concurrent with the filing of this Complaint, Plaintiff sent Defendant
`notice advising Defendant it violated and continues to violate, Section 1770 of the
`CLRA (the “Notice”). The Notice complies in all respects with Section 1782 of the
`CLRA. Plaintiff sent the Notice by Certified U.S. Mail, return-receipt requested to
`Defendant at Defendant’s principal place of business and its agent for service of
`process. Plaintiff’s Notice advised Defendant it must correct, repair, replace or
`otherwise rectify its conduct alleged to be in violation of Section 1770. However,
`Plaintiff advised Defendant that if it fails to respond to Plaintiff’s demand within thirty
`(30) days of receipt of the Notice, pursuant to Sections 1782(a) and (d) of the CLRA,
`Plaintiff will amend this complaint to also seek actual damages and punitive damages.
`
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`Violations of False Advertising Law (FAL)
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. C. §§ 17500, et seq.
`72. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each of the preceding allegations
`as if fully set forth herein.
`73. Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Class, brings a cause of action
`against Defendant pursuant to California Business and Professions code, section
`sections 17500, et seq. (“California’s False Advertising Law” or “FAL”).
`74. The purpose of California’s False Advertising Law is to protect consumers
`from false or misleading advertising or promotions. The FAL prohibits the false or
`deceptive advertising of products to consumers in any form of media, when the
`company placing the advertisement knows, or should have known, that the
`advertisement would be likely to mislead consumers about a material aspect of a
`product.
`
`- 16 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-06754-RGK-RAO Document 1 Filed 07/28/20 Page 17 of 21 Page ID #: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
`
`
`
`
`
`75. As alleged herein, Plaintiff has standing to pursue this claim as she has
`suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of Defendant’s actions
`as set forth herein. Specifically, prior to the filing of this action, Plaintiff purchased at
`least one of the Products for her own personal use. In so doing, she relied upon the
`representations and omissions referenced above and believed the Products contained
`enough ground coffee to make up to the specified number of servings. At the time she
`purchased the Product, Plaintiff was not aware of these misrepresentations and
`omissions.
`In advertising the Products, Defendant made false and misleading
`76.
`statements in order to induce consumers into purchasing the Products and failed to
`make material disclosures that the Products contained enough ground coffee to make
`up to the specified number of servings.
`77. Defendant uses advertising on the Products’ packaging, among other
`things, to promote the Products.
`78. Defendant’s advertising and label claims are deceptive, or misleading
`within the meaning of the FAL because it makes affirmative representations about the
`promised serving yield of the Products, and concealed from and failed to disclose to
`Plaintiff and the Class that the Products will not yield the number of servings
`represented if the Defendant’s own brewing instructions are followed.
`In making its product packaging and labeling and disseminating the
`79.
`statements alleged herein, Defendant knew that the statements were untrue or
`misleading.
`80. Through its deceptive and unlawful marketing practices, Defendant has
`improperly and illegally obtained money from Plaintiff and the Class.
`81. Pursuant to California’s False Advertising Law, specifically Cal. Bus. &
`Prof. Code § 17535, Plaintiff and the Class seek injunctive relief as set forth above and
`an award of full restitution, and/or for such other relief as may be set forth below or
`ordered in the discretion of the Court.
`
`- 17 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-06754-RGK-RAO Document 1 Filed 07/28/20 Pag