Case 8:17-cv-00110-JLS-SS Document 1 Filed 01/23/17 Page 1 of 30 Page ID #:1
`
`
`
`Stephen R. Basser (121590)
`BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
`One America Plaza
`600 West Broadway, Suite 900
`San Diego, CA 92101
`Telephone: (619) 230-0800
`Facsimile: (619) 230-1874
`sbasser@barrack.com
`
`Lori G. Feldman (pro hac to be filed)
`Courtney E. Maccarone (pro hac to be filed)
`LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
`30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
`New York, NY 10004
`Telephone: (212) 363-7500
`Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
`lfeldman@zlk.com
`cmaccarone@zlk.com
`
`Kim E. Richman (pro hac to be filed)
`Jaimie Mak, Of Counsel (SBN 236505)
`RICHMAN LAW GROUP
`81 Prospect Street
`Brooklyn, New York 11201
`Telephone: (212) 687-8291
`Facsimile: (212) 687-8292
`krichman@richmanlawgroup.com
`jmak@richmanlawgroup.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class
`(additional counsel appear on signature page)
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`SUSAN TRAN, on Behalf of Herself and
`all Others Similarly Situated,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`SIOUX HONEY ASSOCIATION,
`COOPERATIVE,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`Case No.
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`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 8:17-cv-00110-JLS-SS Document 1 Filed 01/23/17 Page 2 of 30 Page ID #:2
`
`
`
`1
`
`Plaintiff Susan Tran (“Plaintiff”), a resident of California, individually and on
`
`2
`
`behalf of others similarly situated, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby
`
`3
`
`files this Class Action Complaint for Equitable Relief and Damages, against Sioux
`
`4
`
`Honey Association, Cooperative (“Sioux Honey” or “Defendant”), and alleges as
`
`5
`
`follows:
`
`6
`
`7
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is a proposed consumer protection class action against Defendant
`
`8
`
`Sioux Honey for injunctive relief and economic damages based on misrepresentations
`
`9
`
`and omissions committed by Defendant regarding its Sue Bee Products (as defined
`
`10
`
`below).
`
`11
`
`2.
`
`Aware of the health risks and environmental damage caused by
`
`12
`
`chemical-laden foods, consumers increasingly demand foods that are pure, natural,
`
`13
`
`and free of contaminants or artificial chemicals.
`
`14
`
`3. With the knowledge of such consumer preferences and intending to
`
`15
`
`capitalize on them, Defendant labels its Sue Bee Products as “Pure,” “100% Pure,”
`
`16
`
`and/or “Natural.” It further promotes and advertises its Sue Bee Products as “100%
`
`17
`
`pure, all-natural American honey.”
`
`18
`
`4.
`
`These claims are false, deceptive, and misleading. The Sue Bee
`
`19
`
`Products at issue are not “Pure,” “100% Pure,” “Natural,” or “all-natural” and instead
`
`20
`
`contain glyphosate, a synthetic chemical.
`
`21
`
`5.
`
`Glyphosate is a potent, unnatural biocide and human endocrine disruptor
`
`22
`
`with detrimental health effects that are still becoming known, including the prospect
`
`23
`
`of being a human carcinogen.
`
`24
`
`25
`
`6.
`
`Glyphosate was invented by Monsanto, the agrochemical and agricultural
`
`biotechnology corporation, which began marketing the biocide in 1974 under the trade
`
`26
`
`name Roundup.
`
`27
`
`7.
`
`Defendant markets and distributes the Sue Bee and Aunt Sue’s line of
`
`28
`
`honey products (collectively “Sue Bee Products”). Specifically, the Sue Bee
`
`
`
`1 - CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 8:17-cv-00110-JLS-SS Document 1 Filed 01/23/17 Page 3 of 30 Page ID #:3
`
`
`
`Products at issue1 include, but are not limited to:
`
`a. Sue Bee Clover Honey, labeled “Pure”;
`
`b. Aunt Sue’s Farmers Market Clover Honey, labeled “100% Pure”; and
`
`c. Aunt Sue’s Raw Honey, labeled “100% Pure” and “Natural.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`Discovery may demonstrate that additional products are within the scope of
`this Complaint, and Plaintiff reserves the right to add those products.
`
`2 - CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`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 8:17-cv-00110-JLS-SS Document 1 Filed 01/23/17 Page 4 of 30 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8.
`
`Defendant falsely claims that Sue Bee Products are “Pure,” “100%
`
`23
`
`Pure,” “Natural,” or “all-natural,” despite the presence of the synthetic chemical
`
`24
`
`glyphosate.
`
`25
`
`9.
`
`By deceiving consumers about the nature, quality, and/or ingredients of
`
`26
`
`Sue Bee Products, Defendant is able to sell a greater volume of the products, charge
`
`27
`
`higher prices for the products, and take away market share from competing products,
`
`28
`
`thereby increasing its own sales and profits.
`
`
`
`3 - CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 8:17-cv-00110-JLS-SS Document 1 Filed 01/23/17 Page 5 of 30 Page ID #:5
`
`
`
`1
`
`10. Consumers lack the scientific knowledge and means necessary to
`
`2
`
`determine whether Sue Bee Products are in fact “Pure,” “100% Pure,” “Natural,” or
`
`3
`
`“all-natural” and to know or ascertain the true contents and quality of the products.
`
`4
`
`Reasonable consumers must and do rely on Defendant to report honestly what Sue
`
`5
`
`Bee Products contain and whether the ingredients are in fact “Pure,” “100% Pure,”
`
`6
`
`“Natural,” or “all-natural.”
`
`7
`
`11. Defendant intended for consumers to rely on its representations, and
`
`8
`
`reasonable consumers did in fact so rely. As a result of its false and misleading
`
`9
`
`labeling and omissions of fact, Defendant was and is able to sell Sue Bee Products to
`
`10
`
`the general public of California and realize sizeable profits.
`
`11
`
`12. The sales of Sue Bee Products constitute unlawful trade practices
`
`12
`
`because such sales offend public policy, and are immoral, unethical, oppressive,
`
`13
`
`unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers.
`
`14
`
`13. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s false and misleading
`
`15
`
`advertising claims and marketing practices, Plaintiff and the members of the Class
`
`16
`
`purchased the Sue Bee Products because they were deceived into believing that the
`
`17
`
`Sue Bee Products were “Pure,” “100% Pure,” “Natural,” or “all-natural.” As a result,
`
`18
`
`Plaintiff and members of the Class have been injured in fact because the Sue Bee
`
`19
`
`Products were not “Pure,” “100% Pure,” “Natural,” or “all-natural.”2 Instead, the Sue
`
`20
`
`Bee Products contain glyphosate, a synthetic biocide with human health effects.
`
`21
`
`Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered an ascertainable and out-of-pocket loss.
`
`22
`
`They would not have purchased or used the products had they known the truth about
`
`23
`
`the nature, quality, and/or ingredients of Sue Bee Products, and they will not continue
`
`24
`
`to use them unless and until remedial action is taken.
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`14. Plaintiff seeks relief in this action individually and on behalf of all
`
`
`2 Plaintiff is not seeking damages for any personal injuries in this Complaint; instead,
`this case is based on Defendant’s misrepresentations and omissions regarding Sue
`Bee Products purchased by Plaintiff and Class Members during the Class Period,
`defined below.
`
`4 - CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 8:17-cv-00110-JLS-SS Document 1 Filed 01/23/17 Page 6 of 30 Page ID #:6
`
`
`
`1
`
`purchasers of Sue Bee Honey for violation of the California Consumers Legal
`
`2
`
`Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750-1785 (the “CLRA”); the False Advertising
`
`3
`
`Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 et seq. (the “FAL”); and the Unfair
`
`4
`
`Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. (the “UCL”).
`
`5
`
`15. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks relief equal to the premium Plaintiff and
`
`6
`
`Class Members paid based on Defendant’s representations that the Sue Bee Products
`
`7
`
`are “Pure,” “100% Pure,” “Natural,” or “all-natural” while concealing that the Sue
`
`8
`
`Bee Products contain glyphosate.
`
`9
`
`10
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`16. This Court has original subject-matter jurisdiction over this proposed
`
`11
`
`class action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), the Class Action Fairness Act
`
`12
`
`(“CAFA”). CAFA explicitly provides for the original jurisdiction of the federal
`
`13
`
`courts in any class action in which at least 100 members are in the proposed plaintiff
`
`14
`
`class, any member of the plaintiff class is a citizen of a state different from any
`
`15
`
`defendant, and the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $5,000,000.00, exclusive
`
`16
`
`of interest and costs. Plaintiff is a citizen of California, and on information and
`
`17
`
`belief, defendant Sioux Honey is a citizen of Iowa. On information and belief, the
`
`18
`
`amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000.00.
`
`19
`
`17. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the parties in this case.
`
`20
`
`Plaintiff Tran is a citizen of California and resident of San Luis Obispo County,
`
`21
`
`California. Sioux Honey purposefully avails itself of the laws of California to market
`
`22
`
`Sue Bee products to consumers in California, and distributes Sue Bee Products to
`
`23
`
`numerous retailers throughout California.
`
`24
`
`18. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1). Plaintiff
`
`25
`
`purchased Sue Bee Products sold to her within this District. Defendant has
`
`26
`
`maintained and continues to maintain a Sue Bee Products production facility in
`
`27
`
`Anaheim, California, located in Orange County, which is within the District and from
`
`28
`
`which such products are distributed. Substantial acts in furtherance of the alleged
`
`
`
`5 - CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 8:17-cv-00110-JLS-SS Document 1 Filed 01/23/17 Page 7 of 30 Page ID #:7
`
`
`
`1
`
`improper conduct, including the dissemination of false and misleading information
`
`2
`
`regarding the nature, quality, and/or ingredients of Sue Bee Products, occurred within
`
`3
`
`this District.
`
`4
`
`5
`
`19. At all times mentioned herein, Defendant Sioux Honey was an Iowa
`
`PARTIES
`
`6
`
`cooperative association headquartered in Sioux City, Iowa, and a leading marketer of
`
`7
`
`honey sold through retail stores nationwide. Defendant was and is, at all relevant
`
`8
`
`times, engaged in commercial transactions throughout the state of California,
`
`9
`
`including this District.
`
`10
`
`20. Defendant manufactures and/or causes the manufacture of honey
`
`11
`
`products, and markets and distributes the products in retail stores in California and
`
`12
`
`throughout the United States. Defendant makes, markets, sells, and distributes food
`
`13
`
`products under various trademarks, including Sue Bee and Aunt Sue’s.
`
`14
`
`21. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff Tran was and is an individual
`
`15
`
`consumer over the age of eighteen, a citizen of the state of California, and a resident
`
`16
`
`of the county of San Luis Obispo. Beginning in or around June 2013, Plaintiff has
`
`17
`
`purchased Sue Bee Products approximately once every month, from Von’s in Grover
`
`18
`
`Beach, California.
`
`19
`
`22.
`
`In deciding to make these purchases, Plaintiff saw, relied upon, and
`
`20
`
`reasonably believed that the Sue Bee Products were “Pure,” “100% Pure,” “Natural,”
`
`21
`
`and/or “all-natural.”
`
`22
`
`23. Had Plaintiff known at the time that the Sue Bee Products contain the
`
`23
`
`unnatural biocide glyphosate, she would not have purchased or continued to purchase
`
`24
`
`the Sue Bee Products.
`
`25
`
`26
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`24. American consumers increasingly and consciously seek out natural and
`
`27
`
`healthful food products. Once a small niche market, natural and healthful foods are
`
`28
`
`now sold by conventional retailers, and their sales continue to soar.
`
`
`
`6 - CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 8:17-cv-00110-JLS-SS Document 1 Filed 01/23/17 Page 8 of 30 Page ID #:8
`
`
`
`1
`
`25. Consumers value natural foods, including honey, for myriad health,
`
`2
`
`environmental, and political reasons, including avoiding chemicals and additives,
`
`3
`
`attaining health and wellness, helping the environment, and financially supporting
`
`4
`
`companies that share these values.
`
`5
`
`A. Defendant Cultivates a “Natural” and “Pure” Brand Image for Sue Bee
`
`6
`
`7
`
`Products
`
`26. Defendant knows that consumers seek out and wish to purchase natural
`
`8
`
`foods that do not contain synthetic chemicals, and that consumers will pay more for
`
`9
`
`foods that they believe to be natural or pure than they will pay for foods that they do
`
`10
`
`not believe to be natural or pure.
`
`11
`
`27.
`
` A recent, nationally representative Consumer Reports survey of 1,005
`
`12
`
`adults found that more than half of consumers usually seek out products with a
`
`13
`
`“natural” food label, often in the belief that they are produced without genetically
`
`14
`
`modified organisms, hormones, pesticides, or artificial ingredients. See Consumer
`
`15
`
`Reports National Research Center, Natural Food Labels Survey (2015).3
`
`16
`
`28. To capture this market, Defendant markets Sue Bee as a natural brand
`
`17
`
`with products that are “Pure,” “100% Pure,” “Natural,” or “all-natural.”
`
`18
`
`B. Defendant Represents Sue Bee Products as “Pure,” “100% Pure,”
`
`19
`
`20
`
`“Natural,” or “all-natural”
`
`29. The Sue Bee Products are uniformly advertised as being “Pure,” “100%
`
`21
`
`Pure” “Natural,” or “all-natural.”
`
`22
`
`30. For example, Defendant prominently labels Sue Bee Products as “Pure”
`
`23
`
`“100% Pure,” or “Natural.” These representations appear on the front label of the
`
`24
`
`products.
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`31. Should any consumer seek further information, Defendant’s Sue Bee
`
`
`3
`Available at http://www.consumerreports.org/content/dam/cro/magazine-
`articles/2016/March/Consumer_Reports_Natural_Food_Labels_Survey_2015.pdf
`(last visited January 20, 2017).
`
`7 - CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 8:17-cv-00110-JLS-SS Document 1 Filed 01/23/17 Page 9 of 30 Page ID #:9
`
`
`
`1
`
`website represents Sue Bee Products as “100% pure, all-natural American honey,”
`
`2
`
`“100% Natural,” and “100% Pure.” See http://suebee.com/, last visited January 19,
`
`3
`
`2017.
`
`4
`
`32. Upon information and belief, Defendant has profited enormously from
`
`5
`
`its falsely marketed products and its carefully orchestrated label and image.
`
`6
`
`33. Representing that a product is “Pure,” “100% Pure,” “Natural,” and “all-
`
`7
`
`natural” despite the presence of the synthetic chemical glyphosate is a false statement
`
`8
`
`of fact.
`
`9
`
`34. Consumers reasonably believe that a product represented as “Pure,”
`
`10
`
`“100% Pure,” “Natural,” or “all-natural” does not contain synthetic chemicals.
`
`11
`
`35. Consumers reasonably believe that a product represented as “Pure,”
`
`12
`
`“100% Pure,” “Natural,” or “all-natural” does not contain a potent biocide.
`
`13
`
`36.
`
`In 2015, the Consumer Report National Research Center conducted a
`
`14
`
`nationally representative phone survey to assess consumer opinion regarding food
`
`15
`
`labeling. See Consumer Reports National Research Center, supra.
`
`16
`
`37. Sixty-three percent of all respondents in the Consumer Reports survey
`
`17
`
`said that a “natural” label on packaged and processed foods means that “no toxic
`
`18
`
`pesticides were used.” Id.
`
`19
`
`38. Defendant knows and intends that when consumers see the product
`
`20
`
`labels, its website, or advertisements promising the product is “Pure,” “100% Pure,”
`
`21
`
`“Natural,” or “all-natural,” consumers will understand that to mean that, at the very
`
`22
`
`least, that Sue Bee Products do not contain synthetic chemicals.
`
`23
`
`39. Consumers reasonably expect that if a product contains a synthetic
`
`24
`
`biocide, the product will not be labeled as “Pure,” “100% Pure,” “Natural” or “all-
`
`25
`
`natural.”
`
`26
`
`C. Glyphosate Is Not Natural or Pure
`
`27
`
`40. Defendant’s representations that Sue Bee Products are “Pure,” “100%
`
`28
`
`Pure,” “Natural, or “all-natural” are false. In fact, quantitative testing revealed that
`
`
`
`8 - CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 8:17-cv-00110-JLS-SS Document 1 Filed 01/23/17 Page 10 of 30 Page ID #:10
`
`
`
`1
`
`Sue Bee Products contain glyphosate.
`
`2
`
`41. Tests conducted by an independent laboratory have confirmed the
`
`3
`
`findings by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), which have revealed the
`
`4
`
`presence of glyphosate in Defendant’s Sue Bee Products. See FDA email dated
`
`5
`
`January 8, 2016 (revealing the presence of glyphosate in Sue Bee honey at levels of
`
`6
`
`41
`
`parts
`
`per
`
`billion),
`
`available
`
`at
`
`https://www.usrtk.org/wp-
`
`7
`
`content/uploads/2016/09/FDA1.pdf (last visited January 20, 2017).
`
`8
`
`42. Sue Bee Products thus are not “Pure,” “100% Pure,” “Natural,” or “all-
`
`9
`
`natural,” and labeling or advertising the products as such is misleading and deceptive.
`
`10
`
`43. No serious contention can be made that products containing glyphosate,
`
`11
`
`which often goes by the trade name “Roundup,” is “Pure,” “100% Pure,” “Natural,”
`
`12
`
`or “all-natural.”
`
`13
`
`44. On information and belief, glyphosate is, by volume, the world’s most
`
`14
`
`widely produced herbicide.
`
`15
`
`45. Glyphosate was engineered by the agrochemical and agricultural
`
`16
`
`biotechnology corporation Monsanto, which began marketing the herbicide in 1974
`
`17
`
`under the trade name Roundup, after DDT was banned.4
`
`18
`
`46. By the late 1990s, use of Roundup had surged as a result of Monsanto’s
`
`19
`
`strategy of genetically engineering seeds to grow food crops that could tolerate high
`
`20
`
`doses of the herbicide. Monsanto's marketing strategy promised farmers that the
`
`21
`
`introduction of these genetically engineered seeds would enable farmers to more
`
`22
`
`easily control weeds on their crops.5
`
`23
`
`47. Between 1996 and 2011, herbicide use in the United States increased by
`
`24
`
`527 million pounds, despite Monsanto’s claims that genetically modified crop would
`
`25
`
`reduce pesticide and herbicide use.6 Additionally, evidence continues to support the
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`4
`See https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/monsantos-roundup-enough-
`make-you-sick (last visited January 20, 2017).
`5
`See id.
`6
`See id.
`
`9 - CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 8:17-cv-00110-JLS-SS Document 1 Filed 01/23/17 Page 11 of 30 Page ID #:11
`
`
`
`1
`
`fact that genetic modification has not accelerated crop yields in the United States and
`
`2
`
`3
`
`Canada.7
`
`48.
`
`In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a
`
`4
`
`research arm of the World Health Organization, declared glyphosate a category 2A
`
`5
`
`“probable” human carcinogen. A summary of the study underlying this declaration
`
`6
`
`was published in The Lancet Oncology, Vol. 16, No. 5 (May 2015).8 The IARC
`
`7
`
`study noted such carcinogenic risk factors as DNA damage to human cells resulting
`
`8
`
`9
`
`from exposure to glyphosate.9
`
`49. Glyphosate has also been previously found to be a suspected human
`
`10
`
`endocrine disruptor, with estrogenic effects even at extremely low concentrations.10
`
`11
`
`50.
`
`In November 2015, the European Food Safety Agency published
`
`12
`
`conclusions suggesting that the combined use of glyphosate with other chemicals
`
`13
`
`posed greater potential health risks than when glyphosate is used alone.
`
`14
`
`51.
`
`In light of those conclusions, in April 2016, following a review of
`
`15
`
`products containing glyphosate and tallowamine, a synthetic substance that enhances
`
`16
`
`the activity of glyphosate, France’s health and safety agency announced its intention
`
`17
`
`to ban weed-killers that combine the two chemicals.11
`
`52. Glyphosate, as a biocide, functions by disrupting the shikimate
`
`
`7
`See “Doubts About the Promised Bounty of Genetically Modified Crops” New
`York Times, October 29, 2016, available at
`http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/business/gmo-promise-falls-short.html (last
`visited January 20, 2017).
`
` 8
`
`Available at http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-
`
`2045%2815%2970134-8/abstract (last visited January 20, 2016).
`9
`See id.
`10
`See Thongprakaisang, S. et al., “Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cells
`growth via estrogen receptors,” 59 Food & Chem. Toxicol. 129 (June 2013), abstract
`available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23756170 (last visited Sept. 20,
`2016); see also, e.g., Gasnier, C. et al., “Glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic and
`endocrine disruptors in human cell lines,” 262(3) Toxicology 184 (Aug. 21, 2009),
`abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19539684 (last visited
`January 20, 2017).
`11
`See “France to Ban Some Glyphosate Weedkillers Amid Health Concerns,”
`Reuters, Apr. 8, 2016, available at http://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-
`glyphosate-idUSKCN0X512S (last visited January 20, 2017).
`
`10 - CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:17-cv-00110-JLS-SS Document 1 Filed 01/23/17 Page 12 of 30 Page ID #:12
`
`
`
`1
`
`pathway.12 Although humans themselves do not have a shikimate pathway, the
`
`2
`
`shikimate pathway is present in bacteria, including bacteria that inhabit the human
`
`3
`
`gut and are essential to proper immune functioning. As a result, glyphosate is
`
`4
`
`suspected to disrupt human immune function.
`
`5
`
`53. Studies examining low doses of glyphosate-based biocides at levels that
`
`6
`
`are generally considered “safe” for humans show that these compounds can
`
`7
`
`8
`
`nevertheless cause liver and kidney damage.13
`
`54. Glyphosate is derived from the amino acid glycine. To create
`
`9
`
`glyphosate, one of the hydrogen atoms in glycine is artificially replaced with a
`
`10
`
`phosphonomethyl group.
`
`11
`
`55. Glyphosate is a synthetic substance, which a reasonable consumer would
`
`12
`
`not expect to be found in a product labeled or advertised as “Pure, “100% Pure,”
`
`13
`
`“Natural,” or “all-natural.”
`
`14
`
`D.
`
`Sue Bee Product Labels Are Misleading and Omit Material Facts
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`56. Defendant’s conduct in labeling or representing Sue Bee Products as
`
`
`12
`See, e.g., Heike, H. & N. Amrhein, “The Site of the Inhibition of the Shikimate
`Pathway by Glyphosate,” Plant Physiol. 66:823 (1980), available at
`http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/66/5/823.full.pdf (last visited January 20, 2017);
`see also http://www.glyphosate.eu/glyphosate-mechanism-action (last visited January
`20, 2017).
`13 Myers, J., et al., “Concerns over use of glyphosate-based herbicides and risks
`associated with exposures: a consensus statement,” Environ. Health 2016 15:9,
`available at https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-016-0117-0
`(last visited January 20, 2017); see also Seralini, G.E., et al, “Republished study:
`long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically
`modified maize,” Environ. Sci. Europe 2014;26:14, available at
`http://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-014-0014-5 (last visited
`January 20, 2017); Benedetti, A.L., “The effects of sub-chronic exposure of Wistar
`rats to the herbicide Glyphosate-Biocarb, Toxicol. Lett. 2004;153(2):227–232,
`available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15451553 (last visited January 20,
`2017); Larsen, K., et al., “Effects of Sublethal Exposure to a Glyphosate-Based
`Herbicide Formulation on Metabolic Activities of Different Xenobiotic-Metabolizing
`Enzymes in Rats,” Int. J. Toxicol. 2014, available at
`http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24985121 (last visited January 20, 2017);
`Mesnage R., et al., “Transcriptome profile analysis reflects rat liver and kidney
`damage following chronic ultra-low dose Roundup exposure,” Environ.
`Health 2015;14:70, available at
`http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4549093/ (last visited January 20,
`2017).
`
`11 - CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 8:17-cv-00110-JLS-SS Document 1 Filed 01/23/17 Page 13 of 30 Page ID #:13
`
`
`
`1
`
`“Pure,” “100% Pure,” “Natural,” or “all-natural” deceived and/or was likely to
`
`2
`
`deceive the public.
`
`3
`
`57. Plaintiff and consumers were deceived into believing that Sue Bee
`
`4
`
`Products are “Pure” or “100% Pure” and that there is nothing in the products other
`
`5
`
`than honey.
`
`6
`
`58. Plaintiff and consumers were deceived into believing that Sue Bee
`
`7
`
`Products are “Natural” or “all-natural” and that nothing in the products was not
`
`8
`
`natural.
`
`9
`
`59.
`
`Instead, the Sue Bee Products contain glyphosate, a synthetic chemical
`
`10
`
`and unnatural biocide.
`
`11
`
`60. Consumers cannot discover the true nature of Sue Bee Products from
`
`12
`
`reading the label. Consumers could not discover the true nature of the products even
`
`13
`
`by visiting the Sue Bee website, which makes no mention of glyphosate. Discovery
`
`14
`
`of the true nature of the Sue Bee Products requires knowledge of chemistry and
`
`15
`
`access to laboratory testing that is not available to the average reasonable consumer.
`
`16
`
`61. Defendant deceptively and misleadingly misrepresents and conceals
`
`17
`
`material facts about Sue Bee Products, namely, that Sue Bee Products are not “Pure”
`
`18
`
`or “100% Pure,” because, in fact, the products contain glyphosate; and Sue Bee
`
`19
`
`Products are not what a reasonable consumer would consider “Pure” or “100% Pure,”
`
`20
`
`because the products contain glyphosate.
`
`21
`
`62. Defendant deceptively and misleadingly misrepresents and conceals
`
`22
`
`material facts about Sue Bee Products, namely, that Sue Bee Products are not
`
`23
`
`“Natural” or “all-natural” because, in fact, the products contain glyphosate; and Sue
`
`24
`
`Bee Products are not what a reasonable consumer would consider “Natural,” or “all-
`
`25
`
`natural” because the products contain glyphosate.
`
`26
`
`63. Plaintiff, and the members of the Class, are not at fault for failing to
`
`27
`
`discover Defendant’s wrongs earlier and had no actual or presumptive knowledge of
`
`28
`
`facts sufficient to put them on notice.
`
`
`
`12 - CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 8:17-cv-00110-JLS-SS Document 1 Filed 01/23/17 Page 14 of 30 Page ID #:14
`
`
`
`1
`
`64. The production process Defendant uses for Sue Bee Products is known
`
`2
`
`only to Defendant and its suppliers. Defendant has not disclosed such information to
`
`3
`
`Plaintiff or the Class.
`
`4
`
`65. Testing reveals the presence of glyphosate in Sue Bee Products, but only
`
`5
`
`Defendant knows the methods by which its honey is produced and processed, or what
`
`6
`
`would account for the presence of glyphosate in Sue Bee Products. Defendant’s
`
`7
`
`concealment tolls the applicable statute of limitations.
`
`8
`
`66. To this day, Defendant continues to conceal and suppress the true nature,
`
`9
`
`identity, source, and method of production of Sue Bee Products.
`
`10
`
`E. Defendant Knew or Should Have Known That Its Representations Were
`
`11
`
`12
`
`False
`
`67. Defendant holds itself out to the public as a trusted expert in the
`
`13
`
`production of honey.
`
`14
`
`68. Defendant knew what representations it made on the labels of Sue Bee
`
`15
`
`Products. It also knew how the products were produced and processed, and that they
`
`16
`
`contain glyphosate, a synthetic chemical and biocide.
`
`17
`
`69. Defendant thus knew all the facts demonstrating that Sue Bee Products
`
`18
`
`were mislabeled and falsely advertised.
`
`19
`
`F.
`
`Defendant Intends for Consumers to Rely on Its Misrepresentations
`
`20
`
`70. Defendant made the false, misleading, and deceptive representations and
`
`21
`
`omissions
`
`intending for Plaintiff and Class Members
`
`to rely upon
`
`these
`
`22
`
`representations and omissions in purchasing Sue Bee Products.
`
`23
`
`71.
`
`In making the false, misleading, and deceptive representations and
`
`24
`
`omissions at issue, Defendant knew and intended that consumers would purchase Sue
`
`25
`
`Bee Products when consumers would otherwise purchase a competing product.
`
`26
`
`72. Consumers are willing to pay more for a product represented to be
`
`27
`
`“Pure,” “100% Pure,” “Natural,” or “all-natural” and they expect that product to be
`
`28
`
`free of synthetic chemicals, including biocides such as glyphosate.
`
`
`
`13 - CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 8:17-cv-00110-JLS-SS Document 1 Filed 01/23/17 Page 15 of 30 Page ID #:15
`
`
`
`1
`
`73.
`
`In making the false, misleading, and deceptive representations and
`
`2
`
`omissions at issue, Defendant also knew and intended that consumers would pay
`
`3
`
`more for “Pure” or “100% Pure” products that are free of contaminants than
`
`4
`
`consumers would pay for products that are not “Pure,” “100% Pure,” “Natural,” or
`
`5
`
`“all-natural,” furthering Defendant’s private interest of increasing sales of its
`
`6
`
`products.
`
`7
`
`74. Similarly, independent surveys confirm that consumers will purchase
`
`8
`
`more “Natural” products than conventional products, and will pay more for “Natural”
`
`9
`
`products.
`
`10
`
`G. Consumers Reasonably Rely on Defendant’s False and Misleading
`
`11
`
`12
`
`Representations
`
`75. Consumers frequently rely on label representations and information in
`
`13
`
`making purchase decisions, especially when purchasing food.
`
`14
`
`76. When Plaintiff and Class Members purchased Sue Bee Products, the
`
`15
`
`Products were labeled and/or marketed as “Pure,” “100% Pure,” “Natural,” or “all-
`
`16
`
`natural,” despite the presence of the synthetic chemical, glyphosate.
`
`17
`
`77. These misrepresentations and omissions were uniform and were
`
`18
`
`communicated to Plaintiff and every other member of the Class at every point of
`
`19
`
`purchase and consumption.
`
`20
`
`78. Plaintiff and Class Members were among the intended recipients of
`
`21
`
`Defendant’s deceptive representations and omissions.
`
`22
`
`79. Plaintiff and Class Members reasonably relied to their detriment on
`
`23
`
`Defendant’s misleading representations and omissions.
`
`24
`
`80. Defendant’s false, misleading, and deceptive misrepresentations and
`
`25
`
`omissions deceived and misled, and are likely to continue to deceive and mislead,
`
`26
`
`Plaintiff and Class Members, reasonable consumers, and the general public.
`
`27
`
`81. Defendant’s misleading affirmative statements further obscured what it
`
`28
`
`failed to disclose. Thus, reliance upon Defendant’s misleading and deceptive
`
`
`
`14 - CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 8:17-cv-00110-JLS-SS Document 1 Filed 01/23/17 Page 16 of 30 Page ID #:16
`
`
`
`1
`
`representations and omissions may be presumed.
`
`2
`
`82. Defendant made the deceptive representations and omissions with the
`
`3
`
`intent to induce Plaintiff and Class Members to purchase Sue Bee Products.
`
`4
`
`Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ reliance upon such misrepresentations and omissions
`
`5
`
`may be presumed.
`
`6
`
`83. Defendant’s deceptive representations and omissions are material in that
`
`7
`
`a reasonable person would attach importance to such information and would be
`
`8
`
`induced to act upon such information in making purchase decisions. Thus, Plaintiff’s
`
`9
`
`and the Class Members’ reliance upon such representations and omissions may be
`
`10
`
`presumed as a matter of law; the representations and omissions were material; and a
`
`11
`
`nexus exists between Defendant’s conduct, on the one hand, and Plaintiff’s and the
`
`12
`
`Class Members’ decisions to purchase Sue Bee Products at a certain price, on the
`
`13
`
`other hand.
`
`14
`
`H. Defendant’s Conduct and Plaintiff’s and the Class Members’ Injury
`
`15
`
`84. As an immediate, direct, and proximate result of Defendant’s false,
`
`16
`
`misleading, and deceptive representations and omissions, Defendant injured Plaintiff
`
`17
`
`and Class Members in that they:
`
`18
`
`19
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`paid a sum of money for a product that was falsely represented;
`
`paid more for a product that was falsely represented than they would
`
`20
`
`have paid had the product not been falsely represented;
`
`21
`
`c.
`
`were deprived the benefit of the bargain because the Sue Bee Products
`
`22
`
`they purchased was different from what Defendant promised;
`
`23
`
`d.
`
`were deprived the benefit of the bargain because the Sue Bee Products
`
`24
`
`they purchased had less value than what was represented;
`
`25
`
`e.
`
`did not receive a product that measured up to their expectations as
`
`26
`
`created by Defendant;
`
`27
`
`f.
`
`ingested (or caused their children to ingest) a product that incl