throbber
Case 2:20-cv-06754-RGK-RAO Document 1 Filed 07/28/20 Page 1 of 21 Page ID #:1
`
`
`
` 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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket