`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patrick McNicholas, Esq., SBN 125868
`pmc@micholaslaw.com
`Jeffrey Lamb, Esq., SBN 257648
`jrl@mcnicholaslaw.com
`Emily Pincin, Esq., SBN 334566
`erp@mcnicholaslaw.com
`McNICHOLAS & McNICHOLAS, LLP
`10866 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1400
`Los Angeles, California 90024
`Tel: (310) 474-1582
`Fax: (310) 475-7871
`
`Mark Lanier, Esq., (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`mark.lanier@lanierlawfirm.com
`Alex Brown, Esq., (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`alex.brown@lanierlawfirm.com
`Jonathan Wilkerson, Esq., (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`jonathan.wilkerson@lanierlawfirm.com
`THE LANIER LAW FIRM, PC
`10940 W. Sam Houston Pkwy N, Ste. 100
`Houston, TX 77064
`Tel: (713) 659-5200
`Fax: (713) 659-2204
`
`Shalini Dogra, Esq., SBN 309024
`shalini@dogralawgroup.com
`DOGRA LAW GROUP PC
`2219 Main Street, Unit 239
`Santa Monica, CA 90405
`Tel: (747) 234-6673
`Fax: (310) 868-0170
`
`Attorneys for Named Plaintiffs KAREN DHANOWA and NILIMA AMIN and Proposed Class
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`KAREN DHANOWA and NILIMA AMIN,
`on behalf of themselves and all others
`similarly situated;
`
`
`
`
`
`SUBWAY RESTAURANTS, INC., a
`Delaware Corporation; FRANCHISE
`WORLD HEADQUARTERS, LLC., a
`Connecticut Limited Liability Corporation;
`SUBWAY FRANCHISEE ADVERTISING
`TRUST FUND LTD., a Connecticut
`
`Case No: 4:21-CV-00498-JST
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1. COMMON LAW FRAUD
`
`2. INTENTIONAL
`MISREPRESENTATION
`
`3. NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION
`
`4. UNJUST ENRICHMENT
`
`
`1
`1
`Error! Unknown document property name.
`
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00498-JST Document 33 Filed 06/07/21 Page 2 of 28
`
`Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
`Inclusive,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5. CONSUMERS LEGAL REMEDIES
`ACT, CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 1750, et seq.
`
`6. VIOLATION OF THE FALSE
`ADVERTISING LAW (“FAL”),
`CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND
`PROFESSIONS CODE § 17500, et seq.
`
`7. VIOLATION OF THE UNFAIR
`COMPETITION LAW (“UCL”),
`CALIFRONIA BUSINESS AND
`PROFESSIONS CODE §17200 et seq.
`
`
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`Plaintiffs Karen Dhanowa and Nilima Amin, by and through their attorneys, bring this action
`on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated against Subway Restaurants. Inc., Franchise
`World Headquarters, LLC., and Subway Franchisee Advertising Trust Fund Ltd. Corporation
`(collectively hereinafter referred to as “Defendants”), and Does 1 through 50. Plaintiffs hereby
`allege, on information and belief, except as those allegations which pertain to the named Plaintiffs,
`which allegations are based on personal knowledge, as follows:
`
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`1.
`To capitalize on the premium price consumers are willing to pay for tuna, Defendants
`intentionally make false and misleading representations about tuna being used as an ingredient in
`some of their food items, including salads, sandwiches and wraps (“the Products”). Aware that
`consumers place a heightened value on tuna as an ingredient, Defendants deliberately make false
`and misleading claims about the composition of the Products to increase profits at the expense of
`unsuspecting buyers.
`2.
`Defendants label and advertise the Products as “100% tuna” and additionally represent
`that the tuna in their products contains either skipjack and/or yellowfin tuna from sustainably farmed
`fisheries. However, the Products’ labeling, marketing and advertising is false and misleading. In
`reality, the Products do not contain 100% skipjack and yellowtail tuna, and/or do not consist of
`100% tuna with respect to the fish portion of the product Defendants represent as tuna.
`3.
`The Products are misbranded under Federal and California State law. Defendants’
`deceptive marketing scheme of the Products includes tactics such as falsely labeling the Products
`
`2
`2
`Error! Unknown document property name.
`
`FIRST AMENDED 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 4:21-cv-00498-JST Document 33 Filed 06/07/21 Page 3 of 28
`
`
`
`
`
`as “tuna” on menus throughout Defendants’ “Subway” eatery locations, as well as Defendants’
`website.
`4.
`At all relevant times, Defendants packaged, advertised, marketed, distributed and sold
`the Products to consumers at their “Subway” dining establishment throughout California and the
`United States based on the misrepresentation that the Products were manufactured with 100%
`sustainably caught skipjack and yellowfin tuna. In truth, the Products do not contain 100%
`sustainably caught skipjack and yellowfin tuna and Subway further represents that “we have a global
`ban on the sale of tuna species that come from anything less than healthy stocks, for example
`Albacore and Tongol.”
`5.
`Reasonable consumers rely on product labeling in making their purchasing decisions.
`When a reasonable consumer sees a salad, sandwich or wrap labeled as “100% tuna,” he or she
`reasonably expects that the food product will contain that specifically identified tuna as a
`component, and be comprised of 100% tuna, and further can reasonably expect based on Subway’s
`representations that the tuna component is 100% sustainably caught skipjack and yellowfin tuna and
`further would also expect that Subway honors their representations that “we have a global ban on
`the sale of tuna species that come from anything less than healthy stocks, for example Albacore and
`Tongol.”
`6.
`In reliance on Defendants’ misleading marketing and deceptive advertising practices
`for the Products, Plaintiffs and similarly situated class members reasonably thought they were
`purchasing tuna salads, sandwiches and/or tuna wraps and buying a menu item that was made with
`tuna and contained no other fish or animal species aside from tuna. In fact, neither Plaintiffs nor any
`of the members of the putative class received any salad, sandwich or wrap that Defendants can
`establish as set forth in their representations that the tuna component was 100% sustainably caught
`skipjack and yellowfin tuna and further that the tuna product did not contain “tuna species that come
`from anything less than healthy stocks, for example Albacore and Tongol.” Thus, consumers,
`including Plaintiffs and the putative class were misled into buying food items that partially or wholly
`lacked the ingredient and composition they reasonably thought they were purchasing.
`
`3
`3
`Error! Unknown document property name.
`
`FIRST AMENDED 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 4:21-cv-00498-JST Document 33 Filed 06/07/21 Page 4 of 28
`
`
`
`
`
`7.
`Plaintiffs and other consumers purchased the Products because they reasonably
`believed, based on Defendants’ packaging and advertising that the Products contained 100% tuna,
`based on Subway’s representations that the tuna component was 100% sustainably caught skipjack
`and yellowfin tuna and further that the tuna product did not contain “tuna species that come from
`anything less than healthy stocks, for example Albacore and Tongol.” Had Plaintiffs and other
`consumers known the Products actually did not contain 100% tuna that was sustainably caught
`skipjack and yellowfin tuna and further that the tuna product did not contain “tuna species that come
`from anything less than healthy stocks, for example Albacore and Tongol,” they would not have
`purchased the Products or would have paid significantly less for them. As a result, Plaintiffs and
`other similarly situated class members have been deceived and suffered economic injury.
`8.
`Defendants’ labeling, marketing and advertising uniformly involves multiple false
`and misleading statements, as well as material omissions of fact, concerning the Products that have
`injured Plaintiffs and the Class by duping them into buying premium priced food dishes including
`their representations that Defendants’ packaging and advertising that the Products contained 100%
`tuna, based on Subway’s representations that the tuna component was 100% sustainably caught
`skipjack and yellowfin tuna and further that the tuna product did not contain “tuna species that come
`from anything less than healthy stocks, for example Albacore and Tongol.” These deceptive
`business practices and representations have mislead the general public into believing that the
`Products contain 100% sustainably caught skipjack and yellowfin tuna and further that the tuna
`product did not contain “tuna species that come from anything less than healthy stocks, for example
`Albacore and Tongol.”
`9.
`Based on the fact that Defendants’ advertising misled Plaintiffs and all others like
`them, Plaintiffs bring this class against Defendants to seek reimbursement of the premium they and
`the Class Members paid due to Defendants’ false and deceptive representations about the
`composition and ingredients of the Products.
`10. Plaintiffs seek relief in this action individually and on behalf of all purchasers of the
`Products statewide in California for common law fraud, intentional misrepresentation, negligent
`misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. Additionally, Plaintiffs seek relief in this action
`
`4
`4
`Error! Unknown document property name.
`
`FIRST AMENDED 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 4:21-cv-00498-JST Document 33 Filed 06/07/21 Page 5 of 28
`
`
`
`
`
`individually and on behalf of all purchasers of the Products in California for violation of the
`California Bus. & Prof. Code §§17500, et seq., California’s False Advertising Law (“FAL”), Bus.
`& Prof. Code §§17200, et seq., as well as California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”).
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`11. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), the
`Class Action Fairness Act, because the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000.00,
`exclusive of interests and costs, and at least one class member is a citizen of a state different from
`Defendant Subway Restaurants, Defendant Franchise World Headquarters, as well as Defendant
`Subway Franchisee Advertising Trust Fund Ltd. Additionally, this is a class action involving more
`than 1,000 (one thousand) class members.
`12. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. P. §
`410.10, as a result of Defendants’ substantial, continuous and systematic contacts with the State,
`and because Defendants have purposely availed themselves to the benefits and privileges of
`conducting business activities within the State.
`13. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391, this Court is the proper venue for this action because a
`substantial part of the events, omissions and acts giving rise to the claims herein occurred in this
`District. Moreover, Defendants distributed, advertised and sold the Products, which are the subject
`of the present Complaint, in this District.
`PARTIES
`14. Plaintiff Dhanowa is a citizen and resident of California, and lives in Alameda County.
`15. Plaintiff Amin is a citizen and resident of California, and lives in Alameda County.
`16. Defendant Subway Restaurants is a Delaware corporation headquartered in the State
`of Connecticut, with its principal place of business at 325 Sub Way, Milford, CT 06461. Therefore,
`Defendant Subway Restaurants is a citizen of the states of Delaware and Connecticut. Defendant
`Subway Restaurants manufactures, mass markets, and distributes the Products throughout
`California and the United States.
`17. Defendant Franchise World Headquarters, LLC. is a Connecticut limited liability
`corporation headquartered in the State of Connecticut, with its principal place of business at 325
`
`5
`5
`Error! Unknown document property name.
`
`FIRST AMENDED 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 4:21-cv-00498-JST Document 33 Filed 06/07/21 Page 6 of 28
`
`
`
`
`
`Sub Way, Milford, CT 06461. Hence, Defendant Franchise World Headquarters is a citizen of the
`State of Connecticut. Defendant Franchise World Headquarters manufactures, mass markets, and
`distributes the Products throughout California and the United States.
`18. Defendant Subway Franchisee Advertising Trust Fund Ltd. is a Connecticut
`corporation headquartered in the State of Connecticut, with its principal place of business at 325
`Sub Way, Milford, CT 06461. Thus, Defendant Subway Franchisee Advertising Trust Fund is a
`citizen of the State of Connecticut. Defendant Subway Franchisee Advertising Trust Fund Ltd.
`manufactures, mass markets, and distributes the Products throughout California and the United
`States.
`
`19. Plaintiffs are informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that at all times
`relevant herein each of these individuals and/or entities was the agent, servant, employee,
`subsidiary, affiliate, partner, assignee, successor-in-interest, alter ego, or other representative of
`each of the remaining Defendants and was acting in such capacity in doing the things herein
`complained of and alleged. Plaintiffs reserve their right to amend this Complaint to add different or
`additional defendants, including without limitation any officer, director, employee, supplier, or
`distributor of Defendant Subway Restaurants, Defendant Franchise World Headquarters, and
`Defendant Subway Franchisee Advertising Trust Fund Ltd. who has knowingly and willfully aided,
`abetted, or conspired in the false and deceptive conduct alleged herein.
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS
`20. Consumers often purchase a particular type of salad, sandwich or wrap due to main
`ingredient of the food, and its type of filling. Indeed, the contents of a salad, sandwich or wrap is
`usually the most important attribute to buyers when they are deciding which food dish to purchase.
`Moreover, consumers typically associate tuna as a superior ingredient and are typically willing to
`pay a premium for it. Furthermore, buyers are often willing to pay more for tuna as the filling in
`salads, wraps and sandwiches because they associate the ingredient as having higher nutritional
`value, including greater protein levels.
`21. Defendants know or have reason to know that consumers would find the challenged
`attribute important in their decision to purchase the Products, as indicated by the fact that
`
`6
`6
`Error! Unknown document property name.
`
`FIRST AMENDED 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 4:21-cv-00498-JST Document 33 Filed 06/07/21 Page 7 of 28
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants repeatedly emphasized the advertising claim prominently on the Products’ labeling, as
`well as Defendants’ menus and website. Defendants have been advertising and selling the Products
`as being 100% tuna, and that the tuna component was 100% sustainably caught skipjack and
`yellowfin tuna and further that the tuna product did not contain “tuna species that come from
`anything less than healthy stocks, for example Albacore and Tongol.”
`22. Defendants know and/or should have known about vulnerabilities in their tuna supply
`chain that result in the sale of Product throughout California giving rise to deceptive advertising and
`misbranding of the Products. Defendants do not take sufficient measures to control or prevent the
`known risks of adulteration. On the contrary, they actively perpetuate actions and steps that
`encourage mixing non-tuna ingredients into the Products. The purported “tuna” that is used in
`Defendants’ California-based “Subway” locations comes to each eatery in a sealed vacuum bag that
`has been prepackaged outside the United States. Defendants lack a reliable and standardized
`protocol to ensure that the contents of these sealed vacuum bags are actually tuna.
`23. Defendants consistently advertise the Products as 100% sustainably caught skipjack
`and yellowfin tuna and further that the tuna product did not contain “tuna species that come from
`anything less than healthy stocks, for example Albacore and Tongol.” However, Defendants’
`labeling and marketing scheme for the Products is blatantly false. Defendants identified, labeled and
`advertised the Products as “100% tuna” to consumers, when in fact they were not 100% sustainably
`caught skipjack and yellowfin tuna and further that the tuna product did not contain “tuna species
`that come from anything less than healthy stocks, for example Albacore and Tongol.” Yet,
`Defendants have systematically and consistently continued to label and advertise the Products as
`“100% sustainably caught skipjack and yellowfin tuna and further that the tuna product did not
`contain “tuna species that come from anything less than healthy stocks, for example Albacore and
`Tongol.”
`24. Consequently, because the Products were not the tuna product as advertised,
`consumers are not receiving the benefit of their bargain. Defendants’ marketing, labeling, and
`packaging of the Products are designed to, and do in fact, deceive, mislead and defraud consumers.
`
`7
`7
`Error! Unknown document property name.
`
`FIRST AMENDED 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 4:21-cv-00498-JST Document 33 Filed 06/07/21 Page 8 of 28
`
`
`
`
`
`25. Defendants have no reasonable basis for labeling, advertising, marketing and
`packaging the Products as being or containing 100% sustainably caught skipjack and yellowfin tuna
`and further that the tuna product did not contain “tuna species that come from anything less than
`healthy stocks, for example Albacore and Tongol.” As a result, consumers are consistently misled
`into purchasing the Products for the commonly known and/or advertised benefits and characteristics
`as set forth in the marketing and advertising of Defendants.
`26.
`21 U.S.C. § 343 states that a food product is misbranded if “its labeling is false or
`misleading in any manner, if it is offered for sale under the name of another food,” or if it is an
`imitation of another food,” with labeling defined as “all labels and other written printed, or graphic
`matter (1) upon any article or any of its containers or wrappers or (2) accompanying such article.”
`Similarly, under California’s Sherman Food, Drug and Cosmetic Law (“Sherman Law”), Article 6,
`§ 110660, “Any food is misbranded if its labeling is false or misleading in any particular.”
`27. Defendants further disseminated their false labeling and misrepresentations through
`their display and takeaway menus that accompanied the Products, and identified the food items as
`being or containing solely tuna, even though none of the Products in fact were comprised of or made
`with non-tuna ingredients.
`28. Additionally, § 402(b) of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) affirms that a
`food product is adulterated “if any valuable constituent has been in whole or in part omitted or
`abstracted therefrom; or if any substance has been substituted, wholly or in part therefor; or if
`damage or inferiority has been concealed in any manner; or if any substance has been added thereto
`or mixed or packed therewith so as to increase its bulk or weight or reduce its quality or strength or
`make it appear better or of greater value than it is.” Likewise, under California’s Sherman Law,
`Article 5, § 110585, “any food is adulterated” if : (a) any valuable constituent has been in whole or
`in part omitted or abstracted therefrom; (b) if any substance has been substituted wholly or in part
`therefor; (c) if damage or inferiority has been concealed in any manner or; (d) if any substance has
`been added thereto or mixed or packed therewith so as to increase its bulk or weight or reduce its
`quality or strength to make it appear better or of greater value than it is.”
`
`8
`8
`Error! Unknown document property name.
`
`FIRST AMENDED 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 4:21-cv-00498-JST Document 33 Filed 06/07/21 Page 9 of 28
`
`
`
`
`
`29. Furthermore, 21 U.S.C. § 331 prohibits the “introduction or delivery for introduction
`of any food that is adulterated or misbranded into interstate commerce,” as well as the “adulteration
`or misbranding of any food in interstate commerce.” Similarly, pursuant to California’s Sherman
`Law, Article 5, §§110620, 110625 and 110630, it is unlawful for any person “to manufacture, sell,
`deliver, hold or offer for sale any food that is adulterated,” “to adulterate any food,” or “to receive
`in commerce any food that is adulterated or to deliver or proffer for delivery any such food.”
`30. Defendants have engaged in economic adulteration by selling a food product that
`partially or wholly lacked the valuable constituents of the tuna as represented by Subway, and that
`had been substituted in part or whole. Defendants have further committed unlawful adulteration by
`concealing the inferiority of the Products. Moreover, Defendants’ conduct also constitutes
`prohibited adulteration because substances had been added and mixed into the Products to make
`them appear better or of a greater value than they actually were. Significantly, Defendants have
`perpetuated all the practices of adulteration with the intention of reaping ill-gotten profits at the
`expense of consumers.
`31. Reasonable consumers rely on product labeling when making their purchasing
`decisions. When a consumer sees a food product labeled and identified as 100% sustainably caught
`skipjack and yellowfin tuna and further receives information that the tuna product did not contain
`“tuna species that come from anything less than healthy stocks, for example Albacore and Tongol”
`they reasonably expect the representations to be accurate as to the food product they are purchasing.
`Instead, Defendants have been selling and continuing to sell some mixture that is deceptively and
`dishonestly being passed off as in line with their representations to purchasers but are not actually
`compliant. In reliance on Defendants’ misleading marketing and labeling and deceptive advertising
`practices of the Products, Plaintiffs and similarly situated class members reasonably thought they
`were purchasing 100% sustainably caught skipjack and yellowfin tuna and further that the tuna
`product did not contain “tuna species that come from anything less than healthy stocks, for example
`Albacore and Tongol.” In fact, neither Plaintiffs nor any of the member of the putative class received
`the food product they reasonably thought they were buying. Plaintiffs consumed units of the
`Products as intended and would not have bought them and/or would not have purchased them for
`
`9
`9
`Error! Unknown document property name.
`
`FIRST AMENDED 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 4:21-cv-00498-JST Document 33 Filed 06/07/21 Page 10 of 28
`
`
`
`
`
`the amounts Defendant charged if they had known the advertising and labeling as described herein
`was false and deceptive. Additionally, the Products are worth less than what Plaintiffs paid for them.
`Plaintiffs and the putative Class would not have paid as much as they did for the Products absent
`Defendants’ false and misleading statements and omissions.
`32. The malicious actions taken by Defendants caused significant harm to Plaintiffs and
`similarly situated class members who purchased the Products because they reasonably believed,
`based on Defendants’ marketing, packaging, labeling and advertising schemes, that the Products
`were as advertised when they were not. Had Plaintiffs and other class members known the Products
`actually contained ingredients other than 100% sustainably caught skipjack and yellowfin tuna and
`further that the tuna product contained “tuna species that come from anything less than healthy
`stocks, for example Albacore and Tongol,” they would not have bought the Products or would have
`paid substantially less money for them. As a result, Plaintiffs and similar situated class members
`have been deceived and suffered economic injury. Plaintiffs were economically harmed by
`Defendants’ false labeling, deceptive marketing and misleading packaging conveying the message
`that the Products were made with tuna as they had represented. The value of the Products that
`Plaintiffs actually purchased and consumed was materially less than their value as misrepresented
`by Defendants.
`33. Plaintiffs purchased units of the Products from one of Defendants’ eateries located in
`Alameda County, as well as other counties within the State of California, during the relevant time
`period, including as recently as 2020. Plaintiffs bought and consumed the Products because, based
`on Defendants’ marketing and labeling scheme, they believed the Products were made with 100%
`sustainably caught skipjack and yellowfin tuna and further that the tuna product did not contain
`“tuna species that come from anything less than healthy stocks, for example Albacore and Tongol.”
`Plaintiffs consumed the Products as intended and would not have purchased the Products if they had
`known that the advertising as described herein was false, misleading and deceptive.
`34. During the time when they were each purchasing and consuming the Products,
`Plaintiffs did not take steps to verify the Products’ components, or whether the Products contained
`tuna as the sole ingredient. Reasonable consumers such as Plaintiffs would not have considered it
`
`10
`10
`Error! Unknown document property name.
`
`FIRST AMENDED 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 4:21-cv-00498-JST Document 33 Filed 06/07/21 Page 11 of 28
`
`
`necessary to verify the clear message conveyed by Defendants’ labeling, advertising, marketing and
`packaging of the Products.
`
`
`
`
`RULE 9(B) ALLEGATIONS
`35. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) provides that “[i]n alleging fraud or mistake, a
`party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
`9(b). To the extent necessary, as detailed in the paragraphs above and below, Plaintiffs have satisfied
`the requirement of Rule 9(b) by establishing the following elements with sufficient particularity:
`36. WHO: Defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions of fact in the
`labeling, packaging and marketing of the Products.
`37. WHAT: Defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions of fact by
`labeling, packaging and marketing the Products as 100% sustainably caught skipjack and yellowfin
`tuna and further that the tuna product did not contain “tuna species that come from anything less
`than healthy stocks, for example Albacore and Tongol.” Defendants made these claims with respect
`to the Products even though the Products were not in fact made with 100% sustainably caught
`skipjack and yellowfin tuna and further that the tuna product did not contain “tuna species that come
`from anything less than healthy stocks, for example Albacore and Tongol,” nor meet the
`requirements to make such claims. Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions were material
`because a reasonable consumer would not have purchased or paid as much for the Products if he or
`she knew that they contained false representations.
`38. WHEN: Defendants made the material misrepresentations and omissions detailed
`herein continuously throughout the Class Period.
`39. WHERE: Defendants’ material misrepresentations and omissions were made, inter
`alia, on the labeling of the Products, on Defendants’ website, and throughout Defendants’ various
`other marketing and advertising scheme for the Products, including its menus.
`40. HOW: Defendants made written misrepresentations and failed to disclose material
`facts on the labeling and packaging of the Products and on their website and other advertising.
`41. WHY: Defendants engaged in the material misrepresentations and omissions detailed
`herein for the express purpose of inducing Plaintiffs and other reasonable consumers to purchase
`
`11
`11
`Error! Unknown document property name.
`
`FIRST AMENDED 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 4:21-cv-00498-JST Document 33 Filed 06/07/21 Page 12 of 28
`
`
`
`
`
`and/or pay a premium for the Products based on the belief that they actually contained 100%
`sustainably caught skipjack and yellowfin tuna and further that the tuna product did not contain
`“tuna species that come from anything less than healthy stocks, for example Albacore and Tongol.”
`Defendants profited by selling the Products to millions of unsuspecting consumers statewide in
`California, as well as nationwide.
`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`42. Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of themselves individually and all others
`similarly situated, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(2) and/or (b)(3). Pursuant to Fed. R.
`Civ. P. 23, Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of themselves individually and all others
`similarly situated statewide in California. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class comprised of all persons
`in California who, on or after January 21, 2017 (the “Class Period”) purchased the Products personal
`use and not for resale distribution.
`43. The proposed class consists of all consumers who purchased the Products in the State
`of California for personal use and not for resale, during the time period January 21, 2017, through
`the present. Excluded from the Class are Defendants, their affiliates, employees, officers and
`directors, any individual who received remuneration from Defendants in connection with that
`individual’s use or endorsement of the Products, the Judge(s) assigned to this case, and the attorneys
`of record in this case. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend the Class definitions if discovery and
`further investigation reveal that the Class should be expanded or otherwise modified.
`44. This action is properly brought as a class action for the following reasons:
`(a) The members in the proposed class, which contains no less than one thousand
`members and based on good information and belief is comprised of several thousands
`of individuals, are so numerous that individual joinder of all members is impracticable
`and disposition of the class members’ claims in a single class action will provide
`substantial benefits to the parties and Court, and is in the best interests of the parties
`and judicial economy.;
`(b) Plaintiffs stand on equal footing with and can fairly and adequately protect the
`interests of all members of the proposed class. All marketing and packaging of units
`
`12
`12
`Error! Unknown document property name.
`
`FIRST AMENDED 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 4:21-cv-00498-JST Document 33 Filed 06/07/21 Page 13 of 28
`
`
`
`
`
`of the Products bear the misleading tuna labeling and are falsely advertised as 100%
`sustainably caught skipjack and yellowfin tuna and further that the tuna product did
`not contain “tuna species that come from anything less than healthy stocks, for
`example Albacore and Tongol.” Defendants’ false statements and labeling occur on
`the packaging of the units of Products themselves, and thus every individual consumer
`who purchases the Products is exposed to the false advertising. Defendants have, or
`have access to, address information for the Class Members, which may be used for
`the purpose of providing notice of the pendency of this class action. Further, the class
`definition itself describes a set of common characteristics sufficient to allow a
`prospective plaintiff or class member to identify herself or himself as having a right
`to recover based on the description. ;
`(c) Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the class,
`have no interest incompatible with the interests of the class, and have retained counsel
`competent and experienced in class actions, consumer protection, and false
`advertising litigati