throbber
Case 4:21-cv-00498-JST Document 33 Filed 06/07/21 Page 1 of 28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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

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


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

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

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

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

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

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

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

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

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

Your account does not support viewing this document.

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

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

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

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

Become a Member

One Moment Please

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

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

Your document is on its way!

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

Sealed Document

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

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


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket