Case 2:22-cv-02324 Document 1-1 Filed 04/06/22 Page 1 of 155 Page ID #:10
`Case 2:22-cv-02324 Document1-1 Filed 04/06/22 Page1of155 Page ID #:10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`
`

`

`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 2:22-cv-02324 Document 1-1 Filed 04/06/22 Page 2 of 155 Page ID #:11
`
`
`
`Azar Mouzari, SBN 263461
`Nilofar Nouri, SBN 311871
`BEVERLY HILLS TRIAL ATTORNEYS, P.C.
`468 N. Camden Drive, Suite 238
`Beverly Hills, California 90210
`Tel: 310-858-5567 Fax: 424-286-0963
`Email: azar@bhtrialattorneys.com
`Email: nilofar@bhtrialattorneys.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`
`FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
`
`
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
`STACIA CULLORS, an individual; LAYLA
`CULLORS, NOELANI CULLORS and
`VIVIENNE CULLORS, through their
`guardian ad litem STACIA CULLORS;
`ANTHONY BACANI, an individual;
`DAHLIA BACANI and ELIAS BACANI,
`through their guardian ad litem ANTHONY
`BACANI; JENNIFER CULLORS, an
`individual; AVA CULLORS and JOSHUA
`CULLORS, through their guardian ad litem
`JENNIFER CULLORS, and on behalf of all
`others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`BEECH-NUT NUTRITION COMPANY;
`NURTURE, INC.; PLUM, INC. d.b.a.
`PLUM ORGANICS; GERBER PRODUCTS
`COMPANY; WALMART, INC.; SPROUT
`FOODS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 20
`inclusive,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`____________________________________
`
`
`
`Case No.:
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`(1) STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY –
`FAILURE TO WARN
`
`(2) NEGLIGENCE – FAILURE TO
`WARN
`
`(3) NEGLIGENT PRODUCT DESIGN
`
`(4) NEGLIGENT MANUFACTURING
`
`(5) NEGLIGENT
`MISREPRESENTATION
`
`(6) VIOLATIONS OF THE BUSINESS &
`PROFESSIONS CODE SECTIONS 17200
`ET SEQ. (“UCL”)
`
`(7) VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA
`CONSUMER LEGAL REMEDIES ACT,
`CAL. CIV. CODE SECTION 1770, et seq.
`(“CLRA”)
`
`(8) QUASI-CONTRACT/UNJUST
`ENRICHMENT
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`______________________________________________________________________________________
`1
`PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
`[CLASS-ACTION]
`
`Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 02/25/2022 02:53 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by R. Lozano,Deputy Clerk
`
`Assigned for all purposes to: Spring Street Courthouse, Judicial Officer: Carolyn Kuhl
`
`22STCV07017
`
`Exhibit A - Page 9
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02324 Document 1-1 Filed 04/06/22 Page 3 of 155 Page ID #:12
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`3
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………….......……..…2
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………....3
`
`PARTIES………………………………………………………………………….……….....6
`
`I.
`
`Plaintiffs…………………………………………………………..………..6
`
`II. Defendants………………………………………………………………..10
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE………………………………………………….…………13
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS………………………………………………….……………13
`
`Arsenic in Defendant’s Baby Food……………………………………..…………………15
`
`Lead in Defendant’s Baby Food………………………………………...…………………15
`
`Cadmium in Defendant’s Baby Food………………………………...……………………16
`
`Mercury in Defendant’s Baby Food……………………………………….………………17
`
`Independent Data with Regards to Defendants Walmart, Plum and Sprout…………17
`
`Defendants’ Baby Food………………………………………………………………..……18
`
`Consumer Expectations Regarding Baby Food………………………………………….20
`
`16
`
`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS…………………………………………….…………..23
`
`17
`
`CAUSES OF ACTION…………………………………………….………………………..26
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`COUNT I: STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY (FAILURE TO WARN)…….…….26
`
`COUNT II: NEGLIGENCE (FAILURE TO WARN)…………………..…………..29
`
`COUNT III: NEGLIGENT PRODUCT DESIGN………………………..…………32
`
`COUNT IV: NEGLIGENT MANUFACTURING………………………………….34
`
`COUNT V: NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION………………………………35
`
`COUNT VI: VIOLATIONS OF THE BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE
`SECTIONS 17200 ET SEQ. (“UCL”)……………………………………………….36
`
`COUNT VII: VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CONSUMER LEGAL
`REMEDIES ACT, CAL. CIV. CODE SECTION 1770, et seq. (“CLRA”)…………40
`
`COUNT VIII: QUASI CONTRACT/UNJUST ENRICHMENT……………..……..42
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF…………………………………………………..………………….43
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMAND…………………………………………………………………….44
`
`______________________________________________________________________________________
`2
`PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
`[CLASS-ACTION]
`
`Exhibit A - Page 10
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02324 Document 1-1 Filed 04/06/22 Page 4 of 155 Page ID #:13
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`COME NOW Plaintiffs STACIA CULLORS, an individual, LAYLA CULLORS,
`
`2
`
`NOELANI CULLORS and VIVIENNE CULLORS, through their guardian ad litem STACIA
`
`3
`
`CULLORS, ANTHONY BACANI, an individual, DAHLIA BACANI and ELIAS BACANI,
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`through their guardian ad litem ANTHONY BACANI, JENNIFER CULLORS, an individual,
`
`as well as AVA CULLORS and JOSHUA CULLORS, through their guardian ad litem
`
`JENNIFER CULLORS, and on behalf of all others similarly situated (collectively “Plaintiffs”),
`
`and through their counsel of record, Beverly Hills Trial Attorneys, P.C., file this class action
`
`complaint against BEECH-NUT NUTRITION COMPANY (“BEECH-NUT”), NURTURE,
`
`INC. (“NURTURE”), PLUM, INC. d.b.a. PLUM ORGANICS (“PLUM”), GERBER
`
`PRODUCTS COMPANY (“GERBER”), WALMART, INC. (“WALMART”), SPROUT
`
`FOODS, INC. (“SPROUT”), and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive (collectively “Defendants”),
`
`seeking damages and relief on behalf of themselves and for all others similarly situated for:
`
`12
`
`Strict products liability (failure to warn), negligence (failure to warn), negligent product design,
`
`13
`
`negligent manufacturing, negligent misrepresentation, violation of California’s Unfair
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Competition Law - Business & Professions Code sections 17200, et seq. (“UCL”), California’s
`
`Consumer Legal Remedies Act - Civil Code sections 1750, et seq. (“CLRA”), unjust
`
`enrichment, and related claims as stated herein as below. Unless explicitly stated to the
`
`contrary, all allegations are based upon information and belief.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This case involves a series of manufacturers, BEECH-NUT NUTRITION COMPANY
`
`(“Beech-Nut”), NURTURE, INC. (“Nurture”), PLUM, INC. d.b.a. PLUM ORGANICS
`
`(“Plum”), GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY (“Gerber”), WALMART, INC. (“Walmart”),
`
`and SPROUT FOODS, INC. (“Sprout”) (collectively referred to as “Defendants”) that
`
`knowingly sold baby food products (“Baby Foods”) which contain high levels of toxic heavy
`
`metals including mercury, lead, arsenic and cadmium to Plaintiffs.
`
`Plaintiffs are consumers who purchased Defendants’ Baby Foods reasonably believing
`
`26
`
`that such baby foods are safe, nutritious, and free from harmful toxins contaminants and
`
`27
`
`chemicals.
`
`28
`
`
`
`______________________________________________________________________________________
`3
`PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
`[CLASS-ACTION]
`
`Exhibit A - Page 11
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02324 Document 1-1 Filed 04/06/22 Page 5 of 155 Page ID #:14
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`In reality, and despite Defendants’ promises and reassurances to parents that their
`
`products are pure, natural, safe and healthy, these Baby Foods contain heavy metals that are not
`
`pure, are unnatural, are unsafe, and pose a major risk to babies and infants. Had parents and/or
`
`guardians been fully informed about the contents of the Baby Foods they purchased, they would
`
`not have bought these Baby Foods nor fed them to their children.
`
`In February 2021, the U.S. House of Representatives’ Subcommittee on Economic and
`
`Consumer Policy, Committee on Oversight and Reform released a report (“Report”) containing
`
`outrageous details of Defendants’ tainted Baby Foods based on the submission of internal test
`
`results and company documents. Through this report, it came to light that Defendants’ Baby
`
`Foods are laced with shocking amounts of toxic heavy metals. Specifically, the Subcommittee
`
`found that Defendants sell Baby Foods containing as much as 180 parts per billion (“ppb”)1
`
`inorganic arsenic, 6441 ppb lead, 10 ppb mercury, and manufacture their Baby Foods using
`
`ingredients containing as much as 913.4 ppb arsenic, 886.9 ppb lead, and 344.55 ppb cadmium,
`
`far beyond the regulatory standards.
`
`These numbers are outrageous given that in comparison, the U.S. Food and Drug
`
`17
`
`Administration (“FDA”) has set the maximum allowable levels in bottled water at 10 ppb
`
`18
`
`inorganic arsenic, 5 ppb lead and 5 ppb cadmium, and the U.S. Environmental Protection
`
`19
`
`Agency (“EPA”) has capped the allowable level of mercury in drinking water at 2 ppb. The
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Report held that the test results of Baby Foods and their ingredients “eclipse those levels:
`
`including results up to 91 times the arsenic level, up to 177 times the lead level, up to 69 times
`
`the cadmium level, and up to 5 times the mercury level.”2
`
`The House Staff Report highlighted the high levels of high toxic metals in numerous
`
`baby foods produced by Defendants, namely Defendants Beech-Nut, Nurture and Gerber who
`
`
`
`1 Ppb (or ppbm) is used to measure the concentration of a contaminant in soils, sediments, and water. 1
`ppb equals 1 microgram of substance per kg of solid.
`
`2 Staff Report, Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy Committee on Oversight and Reform
`U.S. House of Representatives, Baby Foods are Tainted with Dangerous Levels of Arsenic, Lead,
`Cadmium and Mercury (Feb. 4, 2021) (“Subcommittee Report”) at 4 (attached as Exhibit “A”).
`
`______________________________________________________________________________________
`4
`PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
`[CLASS-ACTION]
`
`Exhibit A - Page 12
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02324 Document 1-1 Filed 04/06/22 Page 6 of 155 Page ID #:15
`
`
`
`1
`
`cooperated with Congress’s investigation. Defendants Plum, Walmart and Sprout refused
`
`2
`
`cooperation with the Subcommittee which was highly suggestive of their misconduct given
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`their choice not to cooperate with federal regulators.3
`
`Furthermore, in the Report, the Subcommittee concluded that “[m]anufacturers
`
`knowingly sell these products to unsuspecting parents, in spite of internal company standards
`
`6
`
`and test results, and without any warning labeling whatsoever.”4 Additionally, the Report held
`
`7
`
`that exposure to toxic heavy metals causes:
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`a) permanent decreases in IQ
`
`b) diminished future economic productivity
`
`c) increased risk of future criminal and antisocial behavior in children.
`
`d) affected and endanger infant neurological development and long-term brain
`
`function.
`
`e) and other unknown and harmful effects to children.5
`
`Defendants knew or should have known that their Baby Foods contain significant levels
`
`of toxic heavy metals, including arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury. Defendants knew or
`
`should have known that such toxic metals are not fit for consumption, and knew or should have
`
`known that its Baby Foods are detrimental to the health of babies. In fact, Defendants had no
`
`reasonable ground for believing that their Baby Foods were free from toxic heavy metals, or
`
`that such toxic metals were appropriate for sale in Baby Foods.
`
`The high levels of toxic heavy metals found in Defendants’ Baby Foods are as a result of
`
`the ingredients used by Defendants to manufacture these Baby Foods, disregard of regulatory
`
`standards, and corporate policies which failed to test finished products before they were
`
`distributed into the market, and the setting of dangerously inflated internal limits which
`
`
`
`3 Id. at 2.
`4 Id. at 59.
`5 Id. at 2.
`
`______________________________________________________________________________________
`5
`PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
`[CLASS-ACTION]
`
`Exhibit A - Page 13
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02324 Document 1-1 Filed 04/06/22 Page 7 of 155 Page ID #:16
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`Defendants easily ignored, leading to the purchase of parents and/or guardians of these products
`
`and eventually consumption by vulnerable children.
`
`Defendants continue to wrongfully induce consumers to purchase its Baby Foods that are
`
`not as advertised. Plaintiffs are unable to purchase Baby Foods from any of the Defendants with
`
`any degree of certainty that these foods will not contain toxic heavy metals or other
`
`undesirable toxins or contaminants.
`
`Plaintiffs brings this proposed consumer class action individually and on behalf of all other
`
`members of the Class, who, from the applicable limitations period up to and including the
`
`present, purchased for use any of Defendants’ tainted Baby Foods.
`
`As a 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 baby foods that did not deliver what they promised. They paid the purchase price on the
`
`assumption that the labeling of the baby foods was accurate and that it was free of toxic heavy
`
`metals and safe to ingest. Plaintiffs would not have paid this money or fed their children food
`
`containing toxic heavy metals had they known the truth that Defendants’ products contain
`
`17
`
`excessive degrees of toxic heavy metals.
`
`18
`
`19
`
`PLAINTIFFS
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs are, and at all times relevant here, have been citizens of the state of
`
`California. Additionally, unnamed Class Plaintiffs, are, and at all times relevant herein, were
`
`residents of the State of California.
`
`2.
`
`In making their purchasing decisions, Plaintiffs Stacia Cullors, Anthony Bacani
`
`and Jennifer Cullors consider how healthy baby food products are, including the ingredients and
`
`nutritional value of those products. In fact, these baby foods by the various Defendants’ brands,
`
`which were more expensive than cheaper alternatives, were purchased because Plaintiffs Stacia
`
`Cullors, Anthony Bacani and Jennifer Cullors were led to believe that the Baby Foods from these
`
`brands were healthier and safer for consumption by the remaining Plaintiffs.
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`______________________________________________________________________________________
`6
`PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
`[CLASS-ACTION]
`
`Exhibit A - Page 14
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02324 Document 1-1 Filed 04/06/22 Page 8 of 155 Page ID #:17
`
`
`
`3.
`
`On numerous occasions, Plaintiffs Stacia Cullors, Anthony Bacani and Jennifer
`
`Cullors have purchased the Baby Foods from various stores including Target, Walmart,
`
`Albertsons and Walgreens. Specifically, Plaintiff Stacia Cullors purchased hundreds of different
`
`varieties of Defendants’ baby food products in California from September 2009 to May 2012, and
`
`again from February 2020 to December 2021; Plaintiff Anthony Bacani purchased hundreds of
`
`different varieties of Defendants’ baby food products in California from March 2011 to November
`
`2014 and again from May 2016 to January 2019; and Plaintiff Jennifer Cullors purchased
`
`hundreds of different varieties of Defendants’ baby food products in California from January 2011
`
`to September 2013, and again from February 2020 to December 2021.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiffs LAYLA CULLORS, NOELANI CULLORS, VIVIENNE CULLORS,
`
`DAHLIA BACANI, ELIAS BACANI, AVA CULLORS and JOSHUA CULLORS, were
`
`exposed to and consumed the below-mentioned Baby Foods over hundreds of times during a
`
`span of several years. Specifically, Plaintiff Layla Cullors was exposed to and consumed these
`
`Baby Foods over 100 times between September 2009 to May 2012; Plaintiff Noelani Cullors
`
`was exposed to and consumed these Baby Foods over 100 times between February 2020 to
`
`December 2021; Plaintiff Vivienne Cullors was exposed to and consumed these Baby Foods
`
`over 50 times between September 2021 to December 2021; Plaintiff Dahlia Bacani was exposed
`
`to and consumed these Baby Foods over 100 times between March 2011 to November 2014;
`
`Plaintiff Elias Bacani was exposed to and consumed these Baby Foods over 100 times between
`
`May 2016 to January 2019; Plaintiff Ava Cullors was exposed to and consumed these Baby
`
`Foods over 100 times between January 2011 to September 2013; and Plaintiff Joshua Cullors
`
`was exposed to and consumed these Baby Foods over 100 times between February 2020 to
`
`December 2021.
`
`5.
`
`The Baby Foods purchased and consumed by Plaintiffs from Beech-Nut during
`
`the above-mentioned time periods were the following:
`
`• Beech-Nut Rice Cereal (recalled on June 8, 2021)
`• Rice Single Grain Baby Cereal
`• Oatmeal Whole Grain Baby Cereal
`• Classics Sweet Carrots – Stage 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
`
`
`
`______________________________________________________________________________________
`7
`PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
`[CLASS-ACTION]
`
`Exhibit A - Page 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02324 Document 1-1 Filed 04/06/22 Page 9 of 155 Page ID #:18
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`• Organics Just Carrots – Stage 1
`• Naturals Just Sweet Potatoes – Stage 1
`• Classics Sweet Potatoes – Stage 2
`• Classics Sweet Peas – Stage 2
`• Beechnut Naturals just Butternut Squash – Stage 1
`• Organic Just Apples
`• Naturals Bananas – Stage 1
`• Naturals Beets, Pear & Pomegranate
`• Classics mixed vegetables – Stage 2
`• Classics Chicken & Chicken Broth
`• Classics Turkey and Turkey Broth
`• Breakfast on the go Yogurt, Banana and Mixed Berry Blend
`
`
`6.
`
`The Baby Foods purchased and consumed by Plaintiffs from Nurture,
`
`which sells Baby Foods under the brand name HappyBABY, during the above-mentioned time
`
`periods were the following:
`
`• Oats & Quinoa Baby Cereal Organic Whole Grains with Iron – Sitting Baby
`• Oatmeal Baby Cereal, clearly crafted – Organic Whole Grains for Sitting baby
`• Sweet Potatoes – Stage 1
`• Organic Pears – Stage 1
`• Clearly Crafted Prunes Organic Baby Food
`• Simple Combos Apples, Spinach & Kale
`• Superfood Puffs – Apple & Broccoli Organic Grain Snack
`• Superfood Puffs Organic Grain Snack – Sweet Potato & Carrot
`• Organic Teethers Blueberry & Purple Carrot – Sitting
`• Apples, Sweet Potatoes & Granola Clearly Crafted Organic Baby food
`• Organic Rice Cakes Puffed Rice Snack
`
`7.
`
`The Baby Foods purchased and consumed by Plaintiffs from Plum, during the
`
`above-mentioned time periods were the following:
`
`• Just Sweet Potato Organic Baby Food – 1, 4 months and up
`• Just Peaches – organic baby food – for 4+ months (stage 1)
`• Just Prunes Organic Baby Food – 1, 4 months & up
`• Little Teethers Organic Multigrain Teething Wafers – Banana with Pumpkin – Baby
`Crawler
`
`The Baby Foods purchased and consumed by Plaintiffs from Gerber, during the
`
`8.
`
`above-mentioned time periods were the following:
`
`______________________________________________________________________________________
`8
`PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
`[CLASS-ACTION]
`
`Exhibit A - Page 16
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02324 Document 1-1 Filed 04/06/22 Page 10 of 155 Page ID #:19
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`
`
`• Banana – Sitter 2nd Foods
`• Peach – Sitter 2nd Foods
`• Pear – Sitter 2nd Foods
`• Organic Mango Apple Carrot Kale – Sitter 2nd food
`• Carrot Pear Blackberry – Sitter 2nd Foods
`• Organic Apple Blueberry Spinach – Sitter 2nd Food
`• Apple Sweet Potato with Cinnamon – Toddler 12+ months
`• Carrot Sweet Potato Pea – Sitter 2nd Foods
`• Apple Juice from Concentrate – Toddler 12+ months
`• Apple Prune Juice from Concentrate – Toddler 12+ months
`• Variety Pack Juices from Concentrate – White Grape
`• Pear Juice from Concentrate 100% Juice – Toddler 12+ months
`• Mashed Potatoes & Gravy with Roasted Chicken and a side of carrots – toddler
`• Chicken Rice dinner – Sitter 2nd Foods
`• Turkey Rice Dinner – Sitter 2nd Foods
`• Beef and Gravy 2nd foods
`• Ham and Gravy 2nd foods
`• Puffs Banana Cereal Snack – Crawler 8+ months
`• Teether Wheels – Apple Harvest – Crawlers
`• Yogurt Blends Strawberry Snack – Crawler 8+ months
`• Arrowroot Biscuits – crawler 10+ months
`• Rice Single Grain Cereal
`• Multigrain Cereal – Sitter 2nd Foods
`• Oatmeal Single Grain Cereal
`• Carrot – Sitter 2nd food
`• Carrot – Supported Sitter 1st Foods
`• Sweet Potato Supported Sitter 1st Foods Tub
`• Sweet Potato – Sitter 2nd food
`• Sweet Potato – Supported Sitter 1st Foods
`• Pea – Sitter 2nd Foods
`• Green Bean – Sitter 2nd Food
`
`22
`
`23
`
`9.
`
`The Baby Foods purchased and consumed by Plaintiffs from Walmart,
`
`under the brand name Parent’s Choice, during the above-mentioned time periods were the
`
`24
`
`following:
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`• Parent’s Choice Stage 2 (6+ months) Carrot
`• Parent’s Choice Stage 1 (4-6 months) Sweet Potato
`• Parent’s Choice Stage 2 (6+ months) Organic Butternut Squash Vegetable Puree
`• Parent’s Choice Stage 3 (9+ months) Little Hearts Strawberry Yogurt Cereal
`• Parent’s Choice Rice Baby Cereal (recalled in October 2021)
`
`10.
`
`The Baby Foods purchased and consumed by Plaintiffs from Sprout during
`
`______________________________________________________________________________________
`9
`PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
`[CLASS-ACTION]
`
`Exhibit A - Page 17
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02324 Document 1-1 Filed 04/06/22 Page 11 of 155 Page ID #:20
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`the above-mentioned time periods were the following:
`
`• Prunes Organic Baby Food
`• Carrot Apple Mango Organic Baby Food
`• Butternut Chickpea Quinoa & Dates Organic Baby Food
`• Organic Quinoa Puffs Baby Cereal Snack – Apple & Kale
`
`
`
`11.
`
`All of these products were purchased and consumed by Plaintiffs because they
`
`believed these products were healthy Baby Foods based on the labeling on the products and the
`
`advertisements by Defendants which promoted these Baby Foods as organic and nutritious. At
`
`no time during their purchase and consumption were Plaintiffs aware that Defendants’ claims
`
`with regards to the Baby Foods were false and misleading, and that these products actually
`
`contained high levels of heavy metals, chemicals or toxins.
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiffs would not have purchased these Baby Foods, at times paying premium
`
`prices, nor would have consumed these products if they were aware of the presence of the alleged
`
`heavy metals, chemicals, and toxins.
`
`DEFENDANTS
`
`13. Defendant Beech-Nut Nutrition Company (“Beech-Nut”) is a citizen of
`
`Delaware and New York with its principal place of business located at 1 Nutritious Pl.,
`
`Amsterdam, NY 12010. Beech-Nut sells Baby Foods under the brand name Beech-Nut. Beech-
`
`Nut produces Baby Foods aimed at infants 4+ months up to 12+ months and includes a variety of
`
`cereals, “jars”, and “pouches” for these age groups. At all relevant times, Beech-Nut has
`
`conducted business and derived substantial revenue from its manufacturing, advertising,
`
`distributing, selling, and marketing of Baby Foods within the State of California and Los Angeles
`
`23
`
`County.
`
`24
`
`14. Defendant Nurture, Inc. (“Nurture”), is a citizen of Delaware and New York
`
`25
`
`with its principal place of business located at 40 Fulton St, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10038-
`
`26
`
`1850. Nurture owns Happy Family Brands (including Happy Family Organics) and sells Baby
`
`Foods under the brand name HappyBABY. Nurture classifies its HappyBABY range of products
`
`according to three categories: “baby”, “tot”, and “mama”. The “baby” category is comprised of
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`______________________________________________________________________________________
`10
`PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
`[CLASS-ACTION]
`
`Exhibit A - Page 18
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02324 Document 1-1 Filed 04/06/22 Page 12 of 155 Page ID #:21
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`foods, including “starting solids”, intended for age groups 0-7+ months, the “tot” category covers
`
`12+ months, and “mama” includes infant formulas for newborn babies. At all relevant times,
`
`Nurture has conducted business and derived substantial revenue from its manufacturing,
`
`advertising, distributing, selling, and marketing of HappyBABY within the State of California
`
`and Los Angeles County. At all times material hereto, Defendants, and each of them, engaged in
`
`their unfair and deceptive billing practices within the jurisdiction of this Court.
`
`15. Defendant PLUM, INC. d.b.a. PLUM ORGANICS is a citizen of Delaware
`
`and California with its principal place of business located at 1485 Park A venue, Emeryville,
`
`California 94608. Plum sells Baby Foods under the brand name Plum Organics. Plum's products
`
`are divided into groups according to the targeted infant or toddler age and/or type of food product.
`
`For example, there are five groups designated for the youngest infants: Stage 1 (4+ months old),
`
`Stage 2 (6+ months old), Stage 3 (6+ months old), “Super Puffs”, and “Little Teethers”. At all
`
`relevant times, Plum has conducted business and derived substantial revenue from its
`
`manufacturing, advertising, distributing, selling, and marketing of Baby Foods within the State
`
`of California and Los Angeles County.
`
`16. Defendant Gerber Products Company (“Gerber”) is a citizen of Michigan
`
`18
`
`with its principal place of business located at 445 State Street, Fremont, MI 49413-0001. Gerber
`
`19
`
`sells Baby Foods under the brand name Gerber. Gerber organizes its products into broad
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`categories of “formula”, “baby cereal”, “baby food”, “snacks”, “meals & sides” “beverages” and
`
`“organic”. At all relevant times, Gerber has conducted business and derived substantial revenue
`
`from its manufacturing, advertising, distributing, selling, and marketing of Baby Foods within the
`
`State of California and Los Angeles County.
`
`17. Defendant Walmart, Inc. (“Walmart”) is a citizen of Delaware and Arkansas
`
`with its principal place of business located at 702 S.W. 8th St. Bentonville, AK 72716. Walmart
`
`sells Baby Foods under the brand name Parent's Choice. Walmart's Parent's Choice offers a wide
`
`selection of baby foods ranging from “sweet potatoes & corn” to “toddler cookies” and “yogurt
`
`bites”. At all relevant times, Walmart has conducted business and derived substantial revenue
`
`______________________________________________________________________________________
`11
`PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
`[CLASS-ACTION]
`
`Exhibit A - Page 19
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02324 Document 1-1 Filed 04/06/22 Page 13 of 155 Page ID #:22
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`from its manufacturing, advertising, distributing, selling, and marketing of Baby Foods within the
`
`State of California and Los Angeles County.
`
`18. Defendant Sprout Foods, Inc. (“Sprout”) is a citizen of Delaware and New
`
`Jersey with its principal place of business located at 50 Chestnut Ridge Rd, Montvale, NJ 07645.
`
`Sprout sells Baby Foods under the brand name Sprout Organic Foods. Sprout organizes its Baby
`
`Foods selection according to three categories: Stage 2 (6 months+); Stage 3 (8 months+); and
`
`Toddler. At all relevant times, Sprout has conducted business and derived substantial revenue
`
`from its manufacturing, advertising, distributing, selling, and marketing of Baby Foods within the
`
`State of California and Los Angeles County.
`
`19. Plaintiffs are uncertain of the true names and capacities of the Defendants
`
`sued herein as DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, and therefore, sue said Defendants under said
`
`fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend this complaint further to insert the true names and
`
`capacities of said Defendants when the same are discovered. Plaintiffs are informed and believe
`
`and thereon allege that each of the fictitiously named Defendants are responsible in some manner
`
`for the occurrences herein alleged and are liable to the named Plaintiffs, and all other similarly
`
`17
`
`situated on the claims hereinafter set forth. Said named Defendants and fictitiously named
`
`18
`
`Defendants are hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants.”
`
`20. At all times mentioned, all Defendants and each of them, inclusive, were
`
`engaged in the business of researching, developing, designing, licensing, manufacturing,
`
`distributing, selling, marketing, and/or introducing into interstate commerce and into the State of
`
`California, including in Los Angeles County, either directly or indirectly through third parties or
`
`related entities, Baby Foods.
`
`21. At relevant times, Defendants and each of them, inclusive, conducted regular
`
`and sustained business and engaged in substantial commerce and business activity in the State of
`
`California, which included but was not limited to selling, marketing and distributing Baby Foods
`
`in the State of California and Los Angeles County.
`
`22. At all relevant times, Defendants and each of them, inclusive, expected or
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`______________________________________________________________________________________
`12
`PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
`[CLASS-ACTION]
`
`Exhibit A - Page 20
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02324 Document 1-1 Filed 04/06/22 Page 14 of 155 Page ID #:23
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`should have expected that their acts would have consequences within the United States of
`
`America including the State of California and including Los Angeles County, said Defendants
`
`derived and derive substantial revenue therefrom.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`23. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the California Constitution.
`
`24. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Plum because this Defendant is
`
`a citizen of the State of California. Additionally, the Court has personal jurisdiction over Beech-
`
`Nut, Nurture, Gerber, Walmart, Sprout and Plum as each of these Defendants is authorized and
`
`licensed to conduct business in the State of California, maintains and carries on systematic and
`
`continuous contacts in the State of California, and conducts business within the State of
`
`California, and/or otherwise intentionally avails itself of the California market through its
`
`promotion, sales, distribution and marketing within the State to render the exercise of jurisdiction
`
`by this Court permissible.
`
`15
`
`
`
`25. Venue is proper in this Court because all Defendants do business in Los Angeles
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`County, and substantial parts of the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this judicial
`
`district.
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`26.
`
`Inorganic arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury are toxic heavy metals (the
`
`“Toxic Heavy Metals”). The United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) and the
`
`World Health Organization (“WHO”) have declared these Toxic Heavy Metals dangerous to
`
`human health. Specifically, FDA states that these Toxic Heavy Metals have “no established
`
`health benefit,” “lead to illness, impairment, and in high doses, death,” and because of
`
`23
`
`bioaccumulation, “even low levels of harmful metals from individual food sources, can
`
`24
`
`sometimes add up to a level of concern.”6
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`27. The dangerous effects of these toxins are worsened in developing and
`
`vulnerable bodies and brains of babies and children, who FDA explains are at the greatest risk of
`
`
`
`6 FDA, Metals and Your Food, available at: https://www.fda.gov/food/chemicals-metals-pesticides-
`food/metals-and-your-food.
`
`______________________________________________________________________________________
`13
`PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
`[CLASS-ACTION]
`
`Exhibit A - Page 21
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02324 Document 1-1 Filed 04/06/22 Page 15 of 155 Page ID #:24
`
`
`
`1
`
`harm. See Subcommittee Report, p. 2. Exposure, such as ingestion, of Toxic Heavy Metals by
`
`2
`
`babies and children leads to untreatable and permanent brain damage, resulting in reduced
`
`3
`
`intelligence and behavioral problems. For instance, scientific studies have connected
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`exposure to lead to a substantial decrease in children’s total IQ points and their lifetime earning
`
`capacity. See Subcommittee Report, p. 9.