Case 3:20-cv-02733-AGT Document 1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 1 of 12
`
`
`
`Robert Salgado (SBN 297391)
`DAVIS & NORRIS, LLP
`5755 Oberlin Dr. Suite 301
`San Diego, CA 92121
`Phone: 858-333-4103
`Fax Number: 205-930-9989
`Email: rsalgado@davisnorris.com
`
`Dargan Ware (SBN 329215)
`John E. Norris (pro hac vice anticipated)
`Andrew Wheeler-Berliner (SBN 290495)
`DAVIS & NORRIS, LLP
`2154 Highland Avenue South
`Birmingham, Alabama 35205
`Telephone; 205.930.9900
`dware@davisnorris.com
`jnorris@davisnorris.com
`andrew@davisnorris.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`Case No.:
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR
`
`
`1. Violations of Cal. Penal Code § 396;
`2. Violation of the Unfair Business
`Practices (Cal. Bus. And Prof. Code §
`17200 et seq.)
`
`
`
`April 20, 2020
`
`vs.
`
`ADRIENNE FRASER, CODEY DeNOYELLES,
`CHEVALIA MORGAN, CAROLYN
`FLOWERS, PETRINA FENNELL, JILL
`MAYER, KAT HALL, EUGENE F. ELANDER,
`IRIS DELGADO, and CHRISTA RODRIGUEZ
`
` Plaintiff(s),
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`CAL-MAINE FOODS, INC., ROSE ACRE
`)
`FARMS, INC., MICHAEL FOODS, INC.,
`)
`HILLANDALE FARMS, TRILLIUM FARM
`)
`HOLDINGS, LLC., REMBRANDT
`)
`ENTERPRISES, INC., HICKMAN’S EGG
`)
`RANCH, INC., DAYBREAK FOODS, INC.,
`WEAVER BROS., INC., PRAIRIE STAR
`)
`FARMS, LLC., SPARBOE FOODS CORP.,
`)
`HERBRUCK’S POULTRY RANCH, INC.,
`)
`WABASH VALLEY PRODUCE, INC.,
`)
`CENTRUM VALLEY FARMS, L.P., OPAL
`)
`FOODS, LLC., WHOLE FOODS MARKET
`)
`GROUP, INC., COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP.,
`RALEY’S, STATER BROS. HOLDINGS, INC.,
`)
`
`- 1 -
`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
`
`Tel: 858-333-4103 Fax: 205-930-9989
`San Diego, CA 92121
`5755 Oberlin Drive, Suite 301
`Davis and Norris, LLP.
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02733-AGT Document 1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 2 of 12
`
`
`
`WAL-MART STORES, INC., AMAZON.COM,
`INC., SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS,
`ALBERTSON’S COMPANIES, INC., TRADER
`JOE’S CO., THE KROGER CO., WINCO
`HOLDINGS, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
` Defendant(s).
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`This California class action concerns the despicable and illegal practice of price-
`
`gouging of essential groceries, specifically eggs, in the midst of the ongoing and unprecedented
`
`pandemic. Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent bought grossly marked-up eggs through the
`
`supply chain created by the defendants, which includes producers, wholesalers, and retailers. Because
`
`consumers such as plaintiffs lack access to information about which of the defendants, or all of them,
`
`participated in the price-gouging resulting in a near-tripling of egg prices in the past 30 days, plaintiffs
`
`have sued all the defendants in the alternative. Plaintiffs cannot assert that every defendant engaged
`
`in price-gouging, but plaintiffs can and do assert that some or all of these defendants illegally marked
`
`up egg prices following the Governor’s declaration of an emergency in violation of California law.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`The world is in the midst of a global pandemic involving a novel coronavirus called
`
`COVID-19 that causes an often severe and sometimes fatal respiratory infection. The outbreak
`
`originated in December, 2019, in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China, and in short order the local
`
`epidemic spread globally and was deemed a pandemic by the World Health Organization in March,
`
`2020.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`The first reported case of COVID-19 in the United States was diagnosed in
`
`Washington state in late January, 2020. The case involved a man who had recently travelled to the
`
`epicenter of the outbreak in Wuhan.
`
`
`
`3.
`
`By mid-March 2020, there were reported cases in all 50 American states. The federal
`
`government, most states, and many local governments called for stay-at-home and social distancing
`
`measures designed to slow the spread of the disease. California’s Governor, Gavin Newsom, declared
`
`a state of emergency in this state on March 4, 2020. As of the writing of this complaint, the vast
`
`- 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
`
`Tel: 858-333-4103 Fax: 205-930-9989
`San Diego, CA 92121
`5755 Oberlin Drive, Suite 301
`Davis and Norris, LLP.
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02733-AGT Document 1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 3 of 12
`
`
`
`majority of Americans are subject to these measures. Even in areas not subject to government-
`
`mandated stay-at-home orders, most people are voluntarily staying at home except to shop for
`
`necessities and to go to work in “essential” occupations such as healthcare and food sales and delivery
`
`services. The undersigned counsel writing this complaint is doing so from his home office.
`
`
`
`4.
`
`The economic effect of the government-mandated and voluntary measures to combat
`
`the pandemic has been extreme. Many are out of work. Many have had their wages and salaries
`
`reduced. Bars and restaurants have been mostly closed for weeks, some remaining open but limiting
`
`themselves to curbside delivery and home delivery, and it is predicted many will never re-open.
`
`Professional and college sports seasons have been canceled altogether, throwing many out of work.
`
`Schools, colleges, and universities are now limited to online classes. Those in the business of putting
`
`on concerts, plays, and other forms of entertainment are idle as public gatherings have been banned.
`
`All casinos are closed, throwing many more out of work. Hollywood Boulevard, Rodeo Drive, and
`
`Haight-Asbury are all deserted. Oil prices are at their lowest point in decades. The stock market is in
`
`freefall.
`
`
`
`5.
`
`As in any time of economic turmoil, there are those who seek to profit from the misery
`
`of millions. Defendants, who are producers, wholesalers, and retailers of eggs, comprise one such set
`
`of actors seeking to unfairly profit from the increased consumer demand for eggs in the midst of the
`
`ongoing crisis. Again, because it is impossible for consumers such as plaintiffs to obtain information
`
`concerning the secretive process of price-setting, this lawsuit does not assert that each and every
`
`defendant engaged in price-gouging. Rather, plaintiffs assert that, at a minimum, some of these
`
`defendants did so. This pleading in the alternative is specifically authorized by Rule 20(2)(A) of the
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`
`
`6.
`
`The price of eggs nearly tripled between the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and the
`
`end of March. Egg prices have remained much more than ten percent higher than they were prior to
`
`the declaration of emergency.
`
`
`
`7.
`
`Some or all of the defendants are engaging in price-gouging prohibited by California
`
`law. Plaintiffs allege this because of the undeniable fact that egg prices nearly tripled after the
`
`emergency declaration.
`
`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
`
`- 3 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Tel: 858-333-4103 Fax: 205-930-9989
`San Diego, CA 92121
`5755 Oberlin Drive, Suite 301
`Davis and Norris, LLP.
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02733-AGT Document 1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 4 of 12
`
`
`
`PARTIES
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff Codey DeNoyelles purchased eggs at a store owned or operated by defendant
`
`Raley’s and defendant Costco Wholesale Corp. at a grossly inflated price after the declaration of
`
`emergency by Governor Newsom.
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff Adrienne Fraser purchased eggs at a store owned by defendant Whole Foods
`
`Market Group, Inc., and ordered eggs from defendant Amazon.com, Inc., at a grossly inflated price
`
`after the declaration of emergency by Governor Newsom.
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff Chevalia Morgan purchased eggs at a store owned or operated by defendant
`
`Walmart Stores, Inc. at a grossly inflated price after the declaration of emergency by Governor
`
`Newsom.
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff Carolyn Flowers purchased eggs at a store owned or operated by defendant
`
`Save Mart Supermarkets at a grossly inflated price after the declaration of emergency by Governor
`
`Newsom.
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff Petrina Fennell purchased eggs at a store owned or operated by defendant
`
`Grocery Outlet, Inc. at a grossly inflated price after the declaration of emergency by Governor
`
`Newsom.
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff Jill Mayer purchased eggs at a store owned or operated by defendant
`
`Albertson’s Companies, Inc. at a grossly inflated price after the declaration of emergency by
`
`Governor Newsom.
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiff Kat Hall purchased eggs at a store owned or operated by defendant
`
`Albertson’s Companies, Inc. at a grossly inflated price after the declaration of emergency by
`
`Governor Newsom.
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiff Eugene F. Elander purchased eggs at stores owned or operated by defendant
`
`Trader Joe’s Co. and defendant The Kroger Co. at a grossly inflated price after the declaration of
`
`emergency by Governor Newsom.
`
`16.
`
`Plaintiff Iris Delgado purchased eggs at a store owned or operated by defendant
`
`WinCo Holdings, Inc. at a grossly inflated price after the declaration of emergency by Governor
`
`Newsom.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`- 4 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Tel: 858-333-4103 Fax: 205-930-9989
`San Diego, CA 92121
`5755 Oberlin Drive, Suite 301
`Davis and Norris, LLP.
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02733-AGT Document 1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 5 of 12
`
`
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiff Christa Rodriguez purchased eggs at a store owned or operated by defendant
`
`Stater Bros. Holdings, Inc., at a grossly inflated price after the declaration of emergency by Governor
`
`Newsom.
`
`18.
`
`Defendant Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of
`
`Delaware with its principal place of business in Jackson, Mississippi. It is a corporate citizen of
`
`Delaware and Mississippi.
`
`19. Defendant Rose Acre Farms, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of Indiana
`
`with its principal place of business in Seymour, Indiana. It is a corporate citizen of Indiana.
`
`20.
`
`Defendant Michael Foods, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware,
`
`with its principal place of business in Minnetonka, Minnesota. It is a corporate citizen of Delaware
`
`and Minnesota.
`
`21.
`
`Defendant Hillandale Farms is a corporation organized under the laws of Ohio, with
`
`its principal place of business in Newark, Ohio. It is a corporate citizen of Ohio.
`
`22.
`
`Defendant Trillium Farm Holdings, LLC is an entity organized under the laws of Ohio,
`
`with its principal place of business in Johnstown, Ohio. It is a corporate citizen of Ohio.
`
`23.
`
`Defendant Rembrandt Enterprises, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of
`
`Iowa, with its principal place of business in Spirit Lake, Iowa. It is a corporate citizen of Iowa.
`
`24.
`
`Defendant Hickman’s Egg Ranch, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of
`
`Arizona, with its principal place of business in Buckeye, Arizona. It is a corporate citizen of Arizona.
`
`25. Defendant Daybreak Foods, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of
`
`Wisconsin, with its principal place of business in Lake Mills, Wisconsin. It is a corporate citizen of
`
`Wisconsin.
`
`26. Defendant Weaver Bros., Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of Ohio, with
`
`its principal place of business in Versailles, Ohio. It is a corporate citizen of Ohio.
`
`27. Defendant Prairie Star Farms, LLC is an entity organized under the laws of Ohio, with
`
`its principal place of business in New Weston, Ohio. It is a corporate citizen of Ohio.
`
`28. Defendant Sparboe Foods Corp. is a corporation organized under the laws of Iowa,
`
`with its principal place of business in Litchfield, Minnesota. It is a corporate citizen of Iowa and
`
`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
`
`- 5 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Tel: 858-333-4103 Fax: 205-930-9989
`San Diego, CA 92121
`5755 Oberlin Drive, Suite 301
`Davis and Norris, LLP.
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02733-AGT Document 1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 6 of 12
`
`
`
`Minnesota.
`
`29.
`
`Defendant Herbruck’s Poultry Ranch, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws
`
`of Michigan, with its principal place of business in Saranac, Michigan. It is a corporate citizen of
`
`Michigan.
`
`30.
`
`Defendant Wabash Valley Produce, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of
`
`Indiana, with its principal place of business in Dubois, Indiana. It is a corporate citizen of Indiana.
`
`31. Defendant Centrum Valley Farms, L.P., is an entity organized under the laws of
`
`Indiana, with its principal place of business in Clarion, Iowa. It is a corporate citizen of Iowa and
`
`Indiana.
`
`32.
`
`Defendant Opal Foods, LLC is an entity organized under the laws of Delaware, with
`
`its principal place of business in Neosho, MO. It is a corporate citizen of Delaware and Missouri.
`
`33.
`
`The defendants described in Paragraphs 18-32 are involved in egg production,
`
`distribution, and wholesale delivery, and are in the supply chain bringing eggs to market in the
`
`Northern District of California.
`
`34. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., is a corporation organized under the laws of
`
`Delaware with its principal place of business in Austin, Texas. It is a corporate citizen of Delaware
`
`and Texas.
`
`35.
`
`Costco Wholesale Corp. is a corporation organized under the laws of Washington with
`
`its principal place of business in Issaquah, Washington. It is a corporate citizen of Washington.
`
`36.
`
`Raley’s is a corporation organized under the laws of California, with its principal place
`
`of business in Sacramento, California. It is a corporate citizen of California.
`
`37.
`
`Stater Bros. Holdings, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of California,
`
`with its principal place of business in San Bernardino, California. It is a corporate citizen of
`
`California.
`
`38.
`
`Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of
`
`Delaware, with its principal place of business in Bentonville, Arkansas. It is a corporate citizen of
`
`Delaware and Arkansas.
`
`39.
`
`Defendant Amazon.com, Inc., is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware,
`
`- 6 -
`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
`
`Tel: 858-333-4103 Fax: 205-930-9989
`San Diego, CA 92121
`5755 Oberlin Drive, Suite 301
`Davis and Norris, LLP.
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02733-AGT Document 1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 7 of 12
`
`
`
`with its principal place of business in Seattle, Washington. It is a corporate citizen of Delaware and
`
`Washington.
`
`40. Defendant Save Mart Supermarkets is a corporation organized under the laws of
`
`California, with its principal place of business in Modesto, California. It is a corporate citizen of
`
`California.
`
`41.
`
`Defendant Albertson’s Companies, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of
`
`Delaware, with its principal place of business in Boise, Idaho. It is a corporate citizen of Delaware
`
`and Idaho.
`
`42. Defendant Trader Joe’s Co. is a corporation organized under the laws of California,
`
`with its principal place of business in Pasadena, California. It is a corporate citizen of California.
`
`43. Defendant The Kroger Co. is a corporation organized under the laws of Ohio, with its
`
`principal place of business in Cincinnati, Ohio. It is a corporate citizen of Ohio.
`
`44. Defendant WinCo Holdings, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of Idaho,
`
`with its principal place of business in Boise, Idaho. It is a corporate citizen of Idaho.
`
`45.
`
`The defendants described in paragraphs 34-44 are owners or operators of retail stores
`
`or online retailers doing business in this district.
`
` JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`
`
`46.
`
`Jurisdiction is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because the claims in this
`
`case form part of a class action in which the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $5,000,000.00
`
`and the members of the class include citizens of different states than some or all of the defendants.
`
`
`
`47.
`
`Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial
`
`portion of the events giving rise to plaintiffs’ complaint occurred in this district.
`
`
`
`48.
`
`Each defendant, whether a retailer, wholesaler, or producer of eggs, is in the business
`
`of supplying eggs to customers in this federal district. Each defendant is part of the supply chain for
`
`eggs in California.
`
`LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`49.
`
`California law makes it unlawful for any person to increase the price of a product by
`
`more than ten percent during a state of emergency or local emergency. Cal. Penal Code § 396. In this
`
`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 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Tel: 858-333-4103 Fax: 205-930-9989
`San Diego, CA 92121
`5755 Oberlin Drive, Suite 301
`Davis and Norris, LLP.
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02733-AGT Document 1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 8 of 12
`
`
`
`statute, the Legislature expressed its intent “to protect citizens from excessive and unjustified
`
`increases in the prices charged during or shortly after a declared state of emergency or local
`
`emergency for goods and services that are vital and necessary for the health, safety, and welfare of
`
`consumers.” Id. at 396(a). Further, the California Legislature made it clear that this act should be
`
`interpreted liberally for the protection of consumers.
`
`
`
`50. Governor Gavin Newsom declared a state of emergency due to the COVID-19
`
`pandemic on March 4, 2020, with a proclamation available online at https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-
`
`content/uploads/2020/03/3.4.20-Coronavirus-SOE-Proclamation.pdf.
`
`Governor
`
`Newsom’s
`
`proclamation specifically invoked the provisions of Penal Code § 396 and extended the time period
`
`in which they will remain in effect until September.
`
`51.
`
`Section 396 of the California Penal Code applies not only to retailers, but to
`
`distributors, wholesalers, and producers as well. Attorney General Xavier Becerra made this clear in
`
`a proclamation issued March 27, 2020, available online at https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-
`
`releases/attorney-general-becerra-reminds-wholesalers-and-manufacturers-they-are-subject.
`
`52.
`
`Section 396 explicitly states that a violation of the price-gouging statute “shall
`
`constitute an unlawful business practice and an act of unfair competition within the meaning of
`
`Section 17200 of the Business and Professions Code.” Cal. Pen. Code § 396(i). Thus, the rights and
`
`remedies conferred by the UCL (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.) are available to consumer to
`
`combat price gouging.
`
`53.
`
`Section 396 also creates a safe harbor, but only for those sellers who price the goods
`
`at no more than ten percent above their own costs, plus the markup usually charged prior to the state
`
`of emergency. Because the price of eggs have risen more than 180% during the COVID-19
`
`emergency, it is clear that some or all of the defendants have raised their prices to an extent that
`
`violates the law.
`
`54.
`
`Pursuant to Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiffs may join all
`
`defendants against whom they seek relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative, arising out of the
`
`same transaction or series of transactions. Plaintiffs’ purchases of eggs from retailers was part of a
`
`series of transactions that also included any other sale of the eggs that occurred between their being
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`- 8 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Tel: 858-333-4103 Fax: 205-930-9989
`San Diego, CA 92121
`5755 Oberlin Drive, Suite 301
`Davis and Norris, LLP.
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02733-AGT Document 1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 9 of 12
`
`
`
`laid and their arrival at the point of retail sale. Plaintiffs seek relief in the alternative from any and all
`
`entities that marked up the eggs more than ten percent during the COVID-19 emergency.
`
`CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`
`55.
`
`This statewide class action is maintainable against the defendants pursuant to Rule 23
`
`of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs seek to represent the following class against each
`
`defendant:
`
`All consumers who purchased eggs in the state of California that were sold,
`
`distributed, produced, or handled by any of the defendants during the state of
`
`emergency declared by Governor Gavin Newsom on March 4, 2020. All employees
`
`of the Court and plaintiffs’ counsel are excluded.
`
`
`
`
`
`56.
`
`Because plaintiffs bring this case in the alternative against numerous individual
`
`entities involved in selling eggs in California, plaintiffs anticipate that they will seek to certify a
`
`number of subclasses against particular defendants.
`
` 57.
`
`Pursuant to Rule 23(a)(1), the class is so numerous that joinder of all class members
`
`is impracticable. California is the nation’s most populous state, with more than 40 million residents.
`
`According to the Association of California Egg Farmers, these 40 million people consume an average
`
`of three hundred eggs per year. http://californiaeggfarmers.org/. This translates to more than twelve
`
`billion eggs sold in California each year, or approximately one billion per month. The vast majority
`
`of these eggs are sold by the defendants named in this lawsuit, who represent XX% of the California
`
`grocery market, as well as the fifteen largest wholesalers of eggs in California. The number of people
`
`who purchased eggs during the state of emergency is far too large for practicable joinder in a single
`
`suit.
`
`58.
`
`Pursuant to Rule 23(a)(2), this case is predominated by questions of law and fact
`
`common to all class members, including whether the defendants increased their price by more than
`
`ten percent during the COVID-19 emergency.
`
`59.
`
`Pursuant to Rule 23(a)(3), the claims of the named plaintiffs are typical of those of the
`
`class. Every member of the class is a consumer who purchased eggs during the emergency.
`
`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
`
`Tel: 858-333-4103 Fax: 205-930-9989
`San Diego, CA 92121
`5755 Oberlin Drive, Suite 301
`Davis and Norris, LLP.
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02733-AGT Document 1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 10 of 12
`
`
`
`60.
`
`Pursuant to Rule 23(a)(4), the named plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the
`
`interests of the class. The named plaintiffs have no interest adverse to the interests of absent class
`
`members. The named plaintiffs have hired experienced class action plaintiff lawyers as class counsel,
`
`who will diligently and competently represent the interests of the class.
`
`61.
`
`Pursuant to Rule 23(b), questions of law and fact common to all class members
`
`predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members. The claims of the named
`
`plaintiff, like those of all class members, arise out of conduct by one or more of the defendants to
`
`raise the price of eggs in California, affecting all California consumers, and thus all class members,
`
`in the same fashion. For these reasons, a class action is far superior to other available methods of
`
`adjudicating this controversy. Individual lawsuits would be inefficient and duplicative by comparison.
`
`COUNT ONE: VIOLATION OF THE UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW
`
`CLAIM FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`62.
`
`Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the factual averments of the preceding paragraphs
`
`as if fully set forth herein.
`
`63. The Unfair Competition Law (UCL, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.) prohibits
`
`businesses from engaging in any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent practice.
`
`64.
`
`Section 396(i) of the California Penal Code specifically makes violation of that section
`
`a violation of the UCL.
`
`65.
`
`One or more defendants violated § 396 by unjustifiably raising the price of eggs by
`
`more than ten percent during the declared state of emergency.
`
`66. Defendants’ violation of Penal Code Section 396 constitutes a violation of the Unfair
`
`Competition Law.
`
`67.
`
`Each plaintiff is a person who suffered injury-in-fact, and lost money due to
`
`defendants’ violations of the UCL, providing standing under Section 17204 of the Business and
`
`Professions Code.
`
`68.
`
`Plaintiffs are thus entitled to injunctive relief pursuant to Section 17203 of the
`
`Business and Professions Code.
`
`69.
`
`Plaintiffs seek to enjoin all defendants from selling (at any level in the supply chain)
`
`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
`
`- 10 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Tel: 858-333-4103 Fax: 205-930-9989
`San Diego, CA 92121
`5755 Oberlin Drive, Suite 301
`Davis and Norris, LLP.
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02733-AGT Document 1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 11 of 12
`
`
`
`eggs at a price more than ten percent greater than the price of eggs prior to the declaration of
`
`emergency on March 4, 2020.
`
`COUNT TWO: VIOLATION OF THE UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW
`
`CLAIM FOR RESTITUTION
`
`70.
`
`Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege all factual averments of the preceding
`
`paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`71. As explained in Count One, the defendants violated the Unfair Competition Law by
`
`violating Section 396 of the California Penal Code.
`
`72.
`
`This violation entitles plaintiffs and the class to restitution. See Kwikset Corp. v.
`
`Superior Court, 207 P.3d 20, 34 (Cal. 2009).
`
`73.
`
`The measure of restitution in California is the difference between the price paid and
`
`the value received. Chowning v. Kohl’s Dept. Stores, Inc., 2018 WL 3016908 at *1-2 (9th Cir. 2018).
`
`74.
`
`Under Section 396 of the California Penal Code, the legal value of the eggs purchased
`
`by plaintiffs and the class could be no higher than ten percent more than the average retail price of
`
`eggs prior to the emergency. Plaintiffs and the class are thus entitled restitution measured by the
`
`difference between that price and the price paid.
`
`Plaintiff respectfully prays for the following relief,
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`(A) An order certifying the above-described class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure 23, with appropriate notice to absent class members;
`
`(B) An order appointing plaintiffs’ counsel as class counsel for the statewide class;
`
`(C) A declaratory ruling that the defendants have engaged in the practices alleged herein
`
`in violation of California law;
`
`(D) A permanent injunction enjoining defendants from selling eggs at prices prohibited
`
`by Section 396 of the California Penal Code for the remainder of the COVID-19
`
`emergency;
`
`(E) Restitution to plaintiffs and absent class members in an amount determined by the
`
`court pursuant to California law;
`
`- 11 -
`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
`
`Tel: 858-333-4103 Fax: 205-930-9989
`San Diego, CA 92121
`5755 Oberlin Drive, Suite 301
`Davis and Norris, LLP.
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02733-AGT Document 1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 12 of 12
`
`
`
`(F) Any further or different relief the Court may find appropriate.
`
`Plaintiffs demand trial by jury for all issues so triable.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`
`
`DATED: April 20, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DAVIS & NORRIS, LLP
`
`
`
`
` Robert B. Salgado, on behalf of
`Plaintiffs and Proposed Class
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`- 12 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Tel: 858-333-4103 Fax: 205-930-9989
`San Diego, CA 92121
`5755 Oberlin Drive, Suite 301
`Davis and Norris, LLP.
`
`