Case 4:21-cv-00498-JST Document 54 Filed 11/08/21 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’ SECOND AMENDED
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1. COMMON LAW FRAUD
`
`2. INTENTIONAL
`MISREPRESENTATION
`
`3. NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION
`
`4. UNJUST ENRICHMENT
`
`
`1
`1
`Error! Unknown document property name.
`
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00498-JST Document 54 Filed 11/08/21 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., 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.
`This action arises out of Defendants’
`intentionally false and misleading
`representations in its marketing and selling about tuna being used as an ingredient in some of their
`food items, including salads, sandwiches, and wraps (the “Tuna Products”). Aware that consumers
`place a heightened value on tuna as an ingredient, Defendants deliberately make false and
`misleading claims about the composition of its Tuna Products to increase profits at the expense of
`unsuspecting buyers.
`2.
`Defendants have consistently advertised the Tuna Products as being “tuna” and
`“100% tuna.” It is self-evidence that a food item labeled as being “tuna” should be just that: only
`tuna. Such food item should contain no other fish species, animal species, or miscellaneous products
`not otherwise identified or marketed as being included in the “tuna” food item.
`3.
`However, the Tuna Products’ labeling, marketing, and advertising is false, deceptive,
`and misleading. The statements that are false, deceptive, and misleading are that (1) the Tuna
`Products are “tuna” and (2) the Tuna Products are comprised of “100% tuna.”
`
`2
`2
`Error! Unknown document property name.
`
`SECOND 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 54 Filed 11/08/21 Page 3 of 28
`
`
`
`
`
`4.
`In reality, the Tuna Products do not contain 100% tuna; instead, they contain other
`fish species, animal products, or miscellaneous products aside from tuna. When ordering “tuna” at
`a restaurant, a reasonable consumer believes that the product they are paying for contains only tuna
`and no other fish species, animal products, or miscellaneous products. Accordingly, the Tuna
`Products are misbranded under Federal and California State law. Defendants’ deceptive marketing
`scheme of the Tuna Products includes tactics such as falsely labeling the Tuna Products as being
`“tuna” on menus throughout Defendants’ “Subway” eatery locations, as well as on Defendants’
`website.
`5.
`Reasonable consumers rely on product labeling and marketing in making their
`purchasing decisions. When a reasonable consumer sees a salad, sandwich, or wrap labeled,
`marketed, or advertised as being “tuna,” he or she reasonably expects that the food product will be
`comprised only of tuna (as opposed to being comprised of tuna and some other fish species, animal
`products, and/or miscellaneous or mysterious substances not otherwise expected to be in the
`product).
`6.
`In reliance on Defendants’ misleading marketing and deceptive advertising practices,
`Plaintiffs and other consumers purchased the Tuna Products because they reasonably believed,
`based on Defendants’ marketing and advertising, that the Tuna Products contained 100% tuna and
`no other fish species, animal products, or miscellaneous products. Had Plaintiffs and other
`consumers known that the Tuna Products partially or wholly lacked tuna as an ingredient, or that
`the Tuna Products contained other fish species, animal products, or miscellaneous ingredients, they
`would not have purchased the Tuna 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.
`7.
`Defendants’ labeling, marketing, and advertising uniformly involves false and/or
`misleading statements, as well as material omissions of fact, concerning the Tuna Products, which
`have injured Plaintiffs and the Class, and duped them into buying premium priced food dishes based
`on the representation that the Tuna Products contained only tuna and no other fish species, animal
`
`3
`3
`Error! Unknown document property name.
`
`SECOND 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 54 Filed 11/08/21 Page 4 of 28
`
`
`
`
`
`products, or miscellaneous ingredients. These deceptive business practices and representations have
`misled the general public into believing that the Tuna Products contain 100% tuna and only tuna.
`8.
`Based on the fact that Defendants’ advertising misled Plaintiffs and all others
`similarly situated, 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 Tuna Products.
`9.
`Plaintiffs seek relief in this action individually and on behalf of all purchasers of the
`Tuna Products statewide in California for common law fraud, intentional misrepresentation,
`negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. Additionally, Plaintiffs seek relief in this action
`individually and on behalf of all purchasers of the Tuna 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
`10. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 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.
`11. 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.
`12. 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 Tuna Products, which are the
`subject of the present Complaint, in this District.
`
`
`4
`4
`Error! Unknown document property name.
`
`SECOND 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 54 Filed 11/08/21 Page 5 of 28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`PARTIES
`13. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff Dhanowa is and was a citizen and resident of the
`State of California, Alameda County.
`14. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff Amin is and was a citizen and resident of State
`of California, Alameda County.
`15. 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. At all times
`relevant hereto, Defendant Subway Restaurants manufactured, mass marketed, sold, produced, and
`distributed the Tuna Products throughout the United States, including the State of California.
`16. Defendant Franchise World Headquarters, LLC is a Connecticut limited liability
`corporation and is headquartered in the State of Connecticut, with its principal place of business at
`325 Sub Way, Milford, CT 06461. Hence, Defendant Franchise World Headquarters is a citizen of
`the State of Connecticut. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Franchise World Headquarters
`manufactured, mass marketed, sold, produced, and distributed the Tuna Products throughout the
`United States, including the State of California.
`17. 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. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Subway Franchisee
`Advertising Trust Fund Ltd. manufactured, mass marketed, sold, produced, and distributed the Tuna
`Products throughout the United States, including the State of California.
`18. Plaintiffs are informed and believes, and based thereon allege, that at all times relevant
`hereto 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
`
`5
`5
`Error! Unknown document property name.
`
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00498-JST Document 54 Filed 11/08/21 Page 6 of 28
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`A. Subway Falsely Advertises the Tuna Products as Being “Tuna” and “100% Tuna”
`19. Consumers, including Plaintiffs, often purchase a particular type of salad, sandwich,
`or wrap due to the main ingredient alleged to be present in the food item. 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, including Plaintiffs, 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 a higher nutritional value, including greater protein levels.
`20. Defendants have consistently advertised the Tuna Products as being “tuna” and
`“100% tuna.” However, the Tuna Products’ labeling, marketing, and advertising is false and
`misleading. Defendants know or have reason to know that consumers, including Plaintiffs, would
`find the challenged attribute important in their decision to purchase the Tuna Products, as indicated
`by the fact that Defendants repeatedly emphasized the advertising claim prominently on
`Defendants’ menus and website.
`21. In reality, the Tuna Products do not contain 100% tuna; instead, they contain other
`fish, animal species, or miscellaneous ingredients aside from tuna. Accordingly, the Tuna Products
`are misbranded under Federal and California State law. Defendants’ deceptive marketing scheme
`of the Tuna Products includes tactics such as falsely labeling the Tuna Products as being “tuna” on
`menus throughout Defendants’ “Subway” eatery locations, as well as on Defendants’ website.
`22. Defendants’ in-store menus identify its Tuna Products as being “tuna.” Additionally,
`Defendants’ website identifies its Tuna Products as being “100% wild caught tuna blended with
`creamy mayo.”
`
`
`6
`6
`Error! Unknown document property name.
`
`SECOND 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 54 Filed 11/08/21 Page 7 of 28
`
`
`
`
`
`23. Marine biologist Paul Barber, Ph.D. of Integrative Biology, performed testing on
`twenty (20) samples of Tuna Products from twenty different Subway restaurants in the greater
`Southern California region. This testing was performed by researchers at the Barber Lab, located at
`UCLA’s Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. Specifically, Dr. Barber performed
`DNA barcoding testing on twenty samples of Defendants’ Tuna Products. DNA barcoding is a
`method for identifying an unknown sample to a particular specie(s) based on a diagnostic DNA
`sequence. Much like how barcodes can differentiate the broad diversity of products in a grocery
`store, DNA barcoding can accurately identify organisms to species based on the uniqueness of their
`DNA sequence at a predefined region of the genome. DNA barcoding is widely applied as a forensic
`tool to identify wildlife products, including marine wildlife, and is increasingly used to detect
`seafood fraud both in commercial and consumer markets.
`
`
`24. At each of the twenty Subway restaurant establishments, 50 grams of Tuna Products
`were collected. Custom sequencing was used to try and identify the kind of genetic information that
`was present in each of the twenty samples of Tuna Products. The samples were tested against four
`different primers: vertebrate primers, tuna primers, COI (cytochrome c oxidase I) primers, and plant
`primers.
`25. Of the twenty samples tested, nineteen of them had no detectable tuna DNA
`sequences whatsoever. Additionally, the test results indicate that all twenty of the samples contained
`detectable sequences of chicken DNA; a majority of the samples (eleven out of twenty) contained
`detectable sequences of pork DNA; and some of the samples (seven out of twenty) contained
`detectable sequences of cattle DNA.
`26. As such, the Tuna Products are not being sold as advertised; that is, the Tuna Products
`are not “tuna” or “100% tuna” but are contaminated or otherwise adulterated such that consumers
`are not receiving the product they reasonably expect to be purchasing. Defendants do not take
`sufficient measures to control or prevent the known risks of adulteration to its Tuna Products. On
`the contrary, they actively perpetuate actions and steps that encourage mixing or allowing non-tuna
`ingredients to make their way into the Tuna Products.
`
`7
`7
`Error! Unknown document property name.
`
`SECOND 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 54 Filed 11/08/21 Page 8 of 28
`
`
`
`
`
`27. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that all California-based
`Subway restaurants receive their Tuna Products from the same supply chain. Further, Plaintiff are
`informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Defendants fail to take sufficient measures to
`control or prevent the known risks of adulteration to its Tuna Products on a statewide basis.
`28. Consequently, because the Tuna Products were not being sold as advertised,
`consumers are not receiving the benefit of their bargain. Defendants’ marketing and labeling of the
`Tuna Products are designed to, and do in fact, deceive, mislead, and defraud consumers.
`29. Defendants have no reasonable basis for labeling, advertising, and marketing the Tuna
`Products as being tuna or containing 100% tuna. As a result, consumers are consistently misled into
`purchasing the Tuna Products for the commonly known and/or advertised benefits and
`characteristics as set forth in the marketing and advertising of Defendants.
`30. 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.”
`31. Defendants further disseminated their false labeling and misrepresentations through
`their in-store display menus and takeaway menus that accompanied the Tuna Products and identified
`the food items as being or containing solely tuna, even though none of the Tuna Products tested
`contained only tuna.
`32. 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.”
`
`8
`8
`Error! Unknown document property name.
`
`SECOND 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 54 Filed 11/08/21 Page 9 of 28
`
`
`
`
`
`33. 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.”
`34. 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.”
`35. 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 Tuna Products. Moreover, Defendants’ conduct also constitutes
`prohibited adulteration because substances had been added and mixed into the Tuna 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.
`
`B. Plaintiff’s Experience
`36.
`In each year beginning in 2013 and continuing until 2019, Plaintiff Amin ordered
`Tuna Products at Subway restaurants for health and weight loss purposes. Between 2013 and
`2019, Plaintiff Amin ordered, purchased, and consumed over one-hundred Tuna Products from
`Subway restaurants—specifically, the Subway restaurant located at 2717 Middlefield Road, Palo
`Alto, CA 94306.
`
`
`9
`9
`Error! Unknown document property name.
`
`SECOND 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 54 Filed 11/08/21 Page 10 of 28
`
`
`
`
`
`37. Between 2013 and 2019, Plaintiff Amin ordered Tuna Products at Subway
`restaurants based on the representations and/or omissions of material fact(s) identified on
`Subway’s in-restaurant menus, which are typically located behind the sandwich bar on the back
`wall of the restaurant. Specifically, each time Plaintiff Amin visited a Subway restaurant to order a
`sandwich, she looked at the menu, acknowledged the food option identified as being “tuna,”
`ordered a sandwich or wrap because it was identified as being “tuna,” and consumed the Tuna
`Products, all with the understanding and belief that what she was eating was, in fact, only tuna.
`38. When reading a menu item identified as being “tuna,” reasonable consumers,
`including Plaintiff Amin, reasonably believe that the product they are ordering and purchasing will
`contain only tuna and no other fish species, animal species, or miscellaneous products not
`otherwise identified in the menu item.
`39.
`In fact, Plaintiff Amin and other reasonable consumers did not receive the Tuna
`Products as they are advertised. Instead, Plaintiff Amin and other reasonable consumers received
`Tuna Products that were adulterated and contained chicken, pork, and/or cattle DNA or Tuna
`Products that otherwise contained some material that was not in fact tuna.
`40. During the time when Plaintiff Amin was purchasing and consuming the Tuna
`Products, Plaintiff did not take steps to verify the Tuna Products’ components, or to verify whether
`the Tuna Products contained tuna as the sole ingredient. Reasonable consumers such as Plaintiff
`would not have considered it necessary to verify the clear message conveyed by Defendants’
`labeling, advertising, and marketing of the Tuna Products.
`41.
`The malicious actions taken by Defendants caused significant harm to Plaintiff Amin
`and similarly situated class members who purchased the Tuna Products because they reasonably
`believed, based on Defendants’ marketing, packaging, labeling, and advertising schemes, that the
`Tuna Products were being sold as advertised when they were not. Had Plaintiff Amin and other
`class members known the Tuna Products actually contained ingredients other than tuna, they would
`not have bought the Tuna 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
`
`10
`10
`Error! Unknown document property name.
`
`SECOND 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 54 Filed 11/08/21 Page 11 of 28
`
`
`misleading packaging conveying the message that the Tuna Products were made with tuna as they
`had represented. The value of the Tuna Products that Plaintiffs actually purchased and consumed
`was materially less than their value as misrepresented by Defendants.
`42. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), Plaintiff Amin further alleges as
`
`
`
`
`follows:
`
`a. Who: Defendants made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of fact in the
`marketing of its Tuna Products;
`b. What: Defendants made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of fact by
`marketing, labeling, and advertising its Tuna Products as being “tuna” and “100% tuna.”
`Defendants made these claims with respect to the Tuna Products even though the Tuna Products
`contain no detectable tuna DNA sequences. Additionally, Defendants’ Tuna Products contain
`detectable sequences of chicken DNA, pork DNA, and cattle DNA;
`c. When: Each year between 2013 and 2019;
`d. Where: Defendants’ misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact(s) were
`made on the in-store menus at Defendants’ restaurants. Subway’s in-restaurant menus are
`typically located behind the sandwich bar on the back wall of the restaurant. The menus in
`Defendants’ in-store restaurants clearly identify the Tuna Products as being “tuna.” Further,
`Defendants’ online menus identify the Tuna Products as being “100% tuna”;
`e. How: Defendants made written misrepresentations and failed to disclose material
`facts in the labeling, marketing, and advertising of the Tuna Products and on their website and in-
`store menus.
`f. Why: Defendants engaged in the material misrepresentations and/or omissions
`detailed herein for the express purpose of inducing reasonable consumers, including Plaintiffs, to
`purchase and/or a pay a premium for the Tuna Products based on the representation that they are
`“tuna” and contain “100% tuna.” Reasonable consumers, including Plaintiffs, reasonably believe
`that when they order a product identified as “tuna,” that product does not contain any other fish
`species, animal species, or miscellaneous products. Defendants profited by selling the Tuna
`Products to millions of unsuspecting consumers in California, as well as nationwide.
`
`11
`11
`Error! Unknown document property name.
`
`SECOND 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 54 Filed 11/08/21 Page 12 of 28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`C. Class Action Allegations
`43. 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 Tuna Products
`personal use and not for resale distribution.
`44. The proposed class consists of all consumers who purchased the Tuna 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 Tuna 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.
`45. 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 of the Tuna
`Products bear the misleading tuna labeling and are falsely advertised as being “tuna” and “100%
`tuna” when, in fact, the Tuna Products contain no detectable sequences of tuna DNA and contain
`detectable sequences of chicken DNA, pork DNA, and cattle DNA. Defendants’ false statements,
`labeling, and marketing occur on the in-store menus at Defendants’ restaurants as well as
`Defendants’ website, and thus every individual consumer who purchases the Tuna Products (either
`online or in store) are exposed to the false advertising.
`
`12
`12
`Error! Unknown document property name.
`
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00498-JST Document 54 Filed 11/08/21 Page 13 of 28
`
`
`
`
`
`c.
` 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;
`d. 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 litigation, including
`within the context of food and the food industry. Plaintiffs’ attorneys have the experience,
`knowledge, and resources to adequately and properly represent the interests of the proposed class.
`Plaintiffs have no interests antagonistic to those of other proposed class members, and they have
`retained attorneys experienced in consumer class actions and complex litigation as counsel;
`e. Class treatment is superior to other options for resolution of the controversy because
`the relief sought for each class member is so small, that, absent representative litigation, it would be
`infeasible for class members to redress the wrongs done to them. Prosecution of separate actions by
`individual members of the proposed class would create a risk of inconsistent or varying
`adjudications with respect to individual members of the class and thus establish incompatible
`standards of conduct for the party or parties opposing the class. Further, individual cases would be
`so numerous as to inefficiently exhaust judicial resources. Plaintiffs seek damages and equitable
`relief on behalf of the proposed class on grounds generally applicable to the entire proposed class;
`f. Questions of law and fact common to the class predominate over any questions
`affecting only individual class members. There are questions of law and fact common to the
`proposed class which predominate over any questions that may affect particular class members.
`Su