throbber
Case 3:21-cv-02519-JSC Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 1 of 346
`
`
`
`KEITH A. ROBINSON, Esq.
`SHARP LAW, LLP
`(CSBN 126246)
`Ruth Anne French-Hodson (pro hac vice
`ATTORNEY AT LAW
`forthcoming)
`2945 Townsgate Road, Suite 200
`5301 West 75th Street
`Westlake Village, CA 91361
`Prairie Village, Kansas 66208
`Tel: 310.849.3135
`Tel: 913-901-0505
`Fax: 818.279.0604
`Fax: 913-901-0419
`keith.robinson@karlawgroup.com
`rafrenchhodson@midwest-law.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff LAUREN SMITH, individual, on behalf of herself and others
`similarly situated,
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`LAUREN SMITH, individual, on
`)
`Case No.
`)
`
`behalf of herself and others similarly
`COMPLAINT
`)
`situated,
`
`CLASS ACTION
`)
`
`
`)
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`1. Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt
`)
`
`Organizations Act (RICO)
`)
`
`v.
`2. Express Warranty
`)
`
`3. Implied Warranty
`)
`PLUM, PBC,
`4. Negligent Testing & Inspection
`)
`5. Negligent Misrepresentation
`PLUM, INC., D/B/A PLUM
`)
`6. Medical Monitoring
`)
`ORGANICS,
`7. Unjust Enrichment
`)
`CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY,
`8. Common Law Fraud
`)
`9. Colorado Consumer Protection Act
`BEECH-NUT NUTRITION
`)
`10. Kansas Consumer Protection Act
`)
`COMPANY,
`
`)
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY,
`)
`)
`NURTURE, INC., D/B/A
`)
`HAPPYFAMILY ORGANICS,
`SAFEWAY INC.,
`
`
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff LAUREN SMITH on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
`sue Defendants Plum, PBC, Plum, Inc., d/b/a Plum Organics, Campbell Soup
`Company, Beech-Nut Nutrition Company, Gerber Products Company, Nurture, Inc.,
`
`_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
`Page 1
`COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION, Case No.
`
`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 3:21-cv-02519-JSC Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 2 of 346
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`d/b/a HappyFamily Organics, and Safeway Inc. for selling, marketing, advertising,
`distributing, and manufacturing baby food products containing dangerous levels of
`heavy metals and alleges as follows:
`INTRODUCTION
`Food fraud is a crime that siphons millions of dollars every year from
`1.
`unsuspecting American consumers. Food fraud not only results in injury and
`sometimes death to the person who consumes the altered food, but it also deprives
`the purchaser of the value of their purchase—i.e., they overpaid for a product,
`sometimes the full amount of the purchase price.1 As PwC has explained, “Food
`fraud is simply defined as intentional deception using food for economic gain.”2
`“Food fraud” occurs when bad actors cut corners “to profit financially.
`2.
`It is that intent to profit that separates food fraud from failures in food safety and
`food quality.”3
`Food fraud’s economic toll is growingly rapidly both in America and
`3.
`globally: “today’s estimates of the global financial cost of food fraud range from
`$6.2 billion to a massive $40 billion per year.”4
`4. The roots of food fraud run deep in the American economy. In 1906,
`Upton Sinclair published a novel, The Jungle, to expose the horrors that were
`occurring in the American meat-packing industry, including the sickness and death
`
`1 Arun Chauhan, Food fraud – an evolving crime with profit at its heart, NEW FOOD
`(Apr. 23, 2020) (“Loss can also be paying a premium for goods that are presented as
`being of superior quality, when in reality they have been made cheaply with
`contaminated or substitute ingredients. This is loss through overpayment and loss
`caused by the use of a sub-standard or altered product.”).
`2 Julia Leong & Tan Hwee Ching, Tackling food fraud, PWC.com,
`https://www.pwc.com/sg/en/services/food-supply-integrity/tackling-food-fraud.html
`(last visited Mar. 11, 2021).
`3 Luke Cridland, Food Fraud | When Does Food Become Criminal, FOOD UNFOLDED
`(Dec. 17, 2020).
`4 Luke Cridland, Food Fraud | When Does Food Become Criminal, FOOD UNFOLDED
`(Dec. 17, 2020).
`
`_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
`Page 2
`COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION, Case No.
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-02519-JSC Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 3 of 346
`
`
`
`of children caused by contamination during manufacturing and processing. The
`food manufacturers and suppliers cut corners to increase their profits, putting
`safety and honesty behind profits and greed.
`5. Unfortunately, more than a century later, profiteering among food
`companies remains a major problem in America. In particular, contamination of
`baby food with toxic heavy metals is a key issue that is concealed and
`misrepresented to the purchasers of baby food products.
`6. The greed of executives at baby food companies has caused them to
`engage long-running, ongoing schemes to defraud involving premium baby food.
`Several companies have promised and reassured parents that their baby food
`products are pure, natural, safe, and healthy; in reality, these products contain
`heavy metals that are not pure, unnatural, unsafe, and pose a major risk to babies
`and infants.
`7. Had parents (or guardians)5 been fully informed about the contents of
`the baby food they purchased, they would not have bought the premium baby
`food—or would have paid far less for less-than-premium products.
`8. The baby food fraud alleged in this case occurred in multiple stages.
`Executives at these companies devised a scheme to defraud in which baby food
`would be represented as something different than what it was, which made the
`food their companies produced and manufactured not safe for consumption. Then,
`once their food fraud was exposed to the public, Defendants also engaged in
`additional fraudulent acts to cover up, conceal, and continue their ongoing schemes
`to defraud.
`9. The mail and wire fraud statutes have a long-established meaning: each
`mailing and each use of the wires in furtherance of a scheme to defraud is a
`
`
`5 This Complaint uses the term “parents” at times instead of “guardians”; any
`purchaser of baby food within the scope of the class definition is a class member.
`_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
`Page 3
`COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION, Case No.
`
`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 3:21-cv-02519-JSC Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 4 of 346
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`separate criminal act. In turn, given the scope of the advertising and marketing and
`constant use of the Internet and email by Defendants, each Defendant has engaged
`in a pattern of wire and mail fraud since at least January 2019, when Defendants
`formed and began using the Baby Food Council as a vessel for fraud.
`10. This ongoing fraud was only recently revealed. On February 4, 2021,
`the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Reform released
`the explosive report, “Baby Foods Are Tainted with Dangerous Levels of Arsenic,
`Lead, Cadmium, and Mercury.” (hereinafter “the House Staff Report” or
`“Congressional Report”). The House Staff Report exposed rampant fraud,
`misrepresentations, half-truths, and fraud by omission committed by the nation’s
`seven leading baby food manufacturers in selling food to the most vulnerable in
`our population: infants and toddlers.6
`11. The House Staff Report highlighted the high levels of toxic heavy
`metals present in numerous baby foods produced by Defendants, namely
`Defendant Beech-Nut, Defendant Nurture, Defendant Gerber, and Hain who
`cooperated with Congress’s investigation.
`12. Defendants Campbell and Plum refused cooperation along with
`Walmart and Sprout,7 which suggested their misconduct was even more nefarious
`(particularly because it is unusual for corporations not to cooperate with federal
`regulators).
`13. Although there has been no conclusion about a safe level of these
`hazardous heavy metals in baby foods, the FDA sets the maximum allowable
`
`
`6 Staff Report, Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy of the Committee
`on Oversight and Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, Baby Foods Are Tainted
`with Dangerous Levels of Arsenic, Lead, Cadmium, and Mercury (Feb. 4, 2021)
`https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/2021-02-
`04%20ECP%20Baby%20Food%20Staff%20Report.pdf (hereinafter “House Staff
`Report”) (attached as Ex. A).
`7 Id. at 2.
`
`_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
`Page 4
`COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION, Case No.
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-02519-JSC Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 5 of 346
`
`
`
`levels of these toxic heavy metals in water bottles safe for consumption at 10 parts
`per billion (ppb) inorganic arsenic, 5 ppb lead, and 5 ppb cadmium.8 Similarly, the
`EPA only allows up to 10 ppb of arsenic, 10 ppb of lead, 5 ppb of cadmium, and 2
`ppb of mercury in public drinking water.
`
`14. The levels of these toxic heavy metals that would pose health risks to
`infants and children are likely far less than those set for a bottle of water because
`the bottled water limits are set assuming adult consumption—not that of an infant
`or toddler.
`15. The baby food at issue, examined in the House Staff Report, showed
`levels as high as 91 times as much arsenic, 177 times as much lead, 69 times as
`much cadmium, and 5 times as much mercury than levels allowed in bottled
`water.9
`16. All of these toxins are harmful to the babies and children who ingested
`them. Exposure to these heavy metals can result in:
`a. Permanent decreases in IQ;
`
`
`
`8 Id. at 4.
`9 Id.
`
`_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
`Page 5
`COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION, Case No.
`
`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 3:21-cv-02519-JSC Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 6 of 346
`
`
`
`b. Diminished future economic productivity;
`c. Increased risk of future criminal and antisocial behavior in children;
`d. Affected neurological development and brain function in infants;10
`e. Other unknown and harmful effects to children.
`17. But baby food is big business and these companies feared that billions
`of dollars of revenue might slip away if they took the precaution, time, and
`necessary steps to get their products into healthy and safe-for-consumption baby
`food. So, Defendants cut corners, covered up their schemes, and have failed to
`recall their products or stop their campaign of lies and misrepresentations.
`18. This criminal behavior among several of America’s top baby food
`manufacturers remains ongoing and must be stopped. Fortunately, Congress passed
`the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) Act in 1970 to
`address situations precisely like this. Situations of interstate, nationwide fraud that
`no state can tackle on its own and situations where federal prosecutors and
`agencies either lack the resources or priorities to stop immediately (that is not to
`say indictments will not follow, but indictments typically come many years later—
`not immediately).
`19. This case seeks to hold these baby food producers and manufacturers
`accountable where government enforcement has not (at least not yet). Defendants
`should be required to repay the consumers they lied to and stole from—and be
`subject whatever regulatory action and criminal indictments that follow in the
`wake of this case.
`Parties
`I.
`Plaintiff
`A.
`20. Plaintiff Lauren Smith currently resides in the state of Kansas and
`purchased baby foods produced by Defendants for her children in Kansas and
`
`
`
`10 Id.at 2.
`
`_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
`Page 6
`COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION, Case No.
`
`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 3:21-cv-02519-JSC Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 7 of 346
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Colorado. From December 2018 until October 2020, Plaintiff Smith resided in the
`state of Colorado and during that time purchased Defendants’ baby food products
`at Safeway.
`a. Plaintiff Smith purchased products from Defendant Beech-Nut, namely
`Organics Apple Jar, Organics Carrots Jar, Organics Sweet Potato Jar,
`Organics Prunes Jar, Organics Pumpkin Jar, Naturals Green Beans Jar,
`Naturals Banana Jar and other jarred baby food purees. Plaintiff Smith
`purchased Beech-Nut products approximately twenty (20) times from
`December 2018 – March 2019 for her hirst child and August 2020 –
`October 2020 for her second child. Plaintiff Smith purchased Beech-
`Nut products at Safeway, and specifically recalls it being “prevalent” at
`the grocery store. She relied on Beech-Nut’s representations and labels
`that their products were healthy and all natural.
`b. Plaintiff Smith purchased products from Defendant Gerber, namely
`jarred baby food purees, pouches, puffs, and snacks. Plaintiff Smith
`purchased Gerber approximately twenty (20) times between December
`2018- March 2019 based on Gerber’s representations in advertisements
`that its’ products only contained simple ingredients. Further, Plaintiff
`Smith relied on the labels affixed on the Gerber foods she bought her
`children and trusted the labels were accurate about what was contained
`inside.
`c. Plaintiff Smith purchased products from Defendant Nurture, namely
`HappyBABY, Happy Tot Organic Blueberry Pear & Beet Stage 4
`Pouch, Happy Tot Organic Apples Spinach Pea & Broccoli Blend Stage
`4 Pouch, Happy Tot Organic Pear Raspberry Squash & Carrot Fiber &
`Protein Blend Stage 4 Pouch, Happy Tot Organic Pear Blueberry &
`Spinach Fiber & Protein Blend Stage 4 Pouch, Happy Baby Blueberry
`
`_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
`Page 7
`COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION, Case No.
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-02519-JSC Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 8 of 346
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`& Purple Carrot Teethers, Happy Baby Sweet Potato & Banana
`Teethers, Happy Baby Apple & Broccoli Puffs, Happy Baby Sweet
`Potato & Carrot Puffs, Happy Baby Purple Carrot & Blueberry Puffs,
`Love My Veggies Carrots, Bananas, Mangos & Sweet Potatoes Pouch,
`Love My Veggies Zucchinis, Pears, Chickpeas & Kale Pouch, Love My
`Veggies Bananas, Beets, Squash & Blueberries Pouch, Fiber & Protein
`Pears, Kiwi & Kale Toddler Pouch, Happy Tot Pears Mangos &
`Spinach with Super Chia, and other snacks. Plaintiff Smith purchased
`HappyBABY products approximately eighty (80) times, every month
`between December 2018- January 2021 and believe HappyBABY’s
`representations online that the products only contained simple, organic,
`“clearly-crafted” and high quality, non-GMO ingredients.
`d. Plaintiff Smith purchased products from Defendant Campbell, namely
`Plum Organics, Stage 1 Pouches: Just Prunes, Just Sweet Potato, Stage
`2 Pouches: Apple & Broccoli, Apple & Carrot, Apple, Raspberry,
`Spinach & Greek Yogurt, Banana & Pumpkin, Pear Spinach & Pea,
`Pear Purple Carrot & Blueberry, Peach Banana & Apricot, Pumpkin,
`Spinach, Chickpea & Broccoli, Butternut Squash, Carrot, Chickpea &
`Corn, Carrots, Beans, Spinach & Tomato, Stage 3 Pouches: Carrot
`Spinach Turkey Corn Apple & Potato with Celery & Onion, Mighty 4
`Pouches: Banana Blueberry Sweet Potato Carrot Greek Yogurt &
`Millet, Strawberry Banana Greek Yogurt Kale Amaranth & Oat, Apple,
`Blackberry, Purple Carrot, Greek Yogurt & Oat, Tots Pouches: Mighty
`Protein & Fiber Banana, White Bean Strawberry & Chia, Mighty 4
`Blends Pear Cherry Blackberry Strawberry, Black Bean Spinach & Oat,
`Mighty 4 Banana Kiwi Spinach Greek Yogurt & Barley, Mighty
`Veggie Sweet Potato Apple Banana Carrot, Mighty 4 Organic Mango
`
`_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
`Page 8
`COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION, Case No.
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-02519-JSC Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 9 of 346
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Pineapple, White Bean Butternut Squash Oat, Mighty 4 Spinach Kiwi
`Barley Greek Yogurt Pouch, Mighty Protein & Fiber Pear White Bean
`Blueberry Date & Chia, Mighty 4 Strawberry Kale Amaranth. Plaintiff
`Smith purchased these baby foods over 100 times, every month,
`multiple times a month, for her children, between December 2018 and
`January 2021. Based on representations on the Plum website, when
`making purchasing decisions, Plaintiff Smith trusted the labels and
`advertisements that these products were safe for her children.
`21. Prior to purchasing these baby foods, Plaintiff Smith saw Defendants’
`advertisements, claims on the packaging alleging the food was nutritious, healthy,
`and safe. Plaintiff Smith relied on these representations in purchasing food for her
`daughter. During that time, based on Defendants’ omissions, false and misleading
`claims, warranties, representations, advertisements and other fraudulent marketing,
`Plaintiff Smith was unaware that these products contained any level of heavy
`metals, chemicals, or toxins, and would not have purchased the food if that was
`fully disclosed. Further, she would not have paid the premium price for the baby
`foods if the information of toxins was fully disclosed. Plaintiff Smith was injured
`by paying a premium for the baby foods that have no or very little value—or
`whose value was at least less than what she paid—based on the presence of the
`heavy metals, chemicals, and toxins. Plaintiff Smith suffered anguish and concern
`for her daughter since learning that these products contain high levels of heavy
`metals.
`22. Through counsel, Plaintiff Smith notified Manufacturer Defendants of
`her intention to file suit by letter dated March 26, 2021.
`23. Through counsel, Plaintiff Smith notified Defendant Safeway of her
`intention to file suit by letter dated March 29, 2021.
`
`_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
`Page 9
`COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION, Case No.
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-02519-JSC Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 10 of 346
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`24. Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all consumers
`who purchased baby foods manufactured by Defendants to cause the disclosure of
`the presence and/or risk of the presence of heavy metals and/or other toxins that do
`not conform to the labels, packaging, advertising, and statements in the baby food
`products; to correct the false and misleading perception that Defendants created in
`the minds of consumers that their products are high quality, healthy, and safe for
`infant consumption; and to obtain redress for those who have purchased the baby
`food.
`B. Defendants
`25. Defendant Beech-Nut Nutrition Company (“Beech-Nut”) is
`incorporated in New York. Its headquarters and principal place of business is
`located at One Nutritious Place, Amsterdam, New York 12010.
`26. Defendant Beech-Nut formulates, develops, manufactures, labels,
`distributes, markets, advertises, and sells under the baby food brand names Beech-
`Nut throughout the United States, including in this District, during the Class Period
`(defined below). The advertising, labeling, and packaging for these products, relied
`upon by Plaintiff were prepared, reviewed, and/or approved by Defendant Beech-
`Nut and its agents, and were disseminated by Defendant Beech-Nut and its agents
`through marketing, advertising, packaging, and labeling that contained the
`misrepresentations alleged herein. The marketing, advertising, packaging, and
`labeling for these baby foods were designed to encourage consumers to purchase
`them and reasonably misled the reasonable consumer, i.e., Plaintiff and the Class,
`into purchasing them. Defendant Beech-Nut owns, manufactures, and distributes
`the baby foods, and created, allowed, negligently oversaw, and/or authorized the
`unlawful, fraudulent, unfair, misleading, and/or deceptive labeling and advertising
`for the baby foods. Defendant Beech-Nut is responsible for sourcing ingredients,
`
`_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
`Page 10
`COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION, Case No.
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-02519-JSC Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 11 of 346
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`manufacturing the products, and conducting all relevant quality assurance
`protocols, including testing, for the ingredients and finished baby foods.
`27. Defendant Campbell Soup Company (“Campbell”) is incorporated in
`Delaware. Its headquarters and principal place of business is located at 1 Campbell
`Place, Camden, NJ 08103-1701.
`28. Defendant Plum, Inc., d/b/a Plum Organics, is a Delaware corporation.
`In 2013, it was reincorporated as a public benefit corporation (Plum, PBC) in
`Delaware. Until February 2021, its headquarters were located at 1485 Park
`Avenue, Suite 200, Emeryville, California. Plum, Inc. holds the Plum intellectual
`property and brands. As recently as January 27, 2021, Plum, Inc. reported to the
`Secretary of State for the State of California that its Principal Executive Office,
`Chief Executive Officer, Secretary, and Chief Financial Officer were all located at
`1485 Park Avenue, Suite 200, Emeryville, California. On February 22, 2021, days
`after Plum Organics began facing suit in California, Plum, Inc. surrendered its right
`to do business in California and revoked its designation of agent for service of
`process in California. Plum, Inc. consented to service through the California
`Secretary of State for actions based upon any liability or obligation incurred within
`the State of California prior to the filing of the Certificate of Surrender. Based on
`the Certificate of Surrender, Plaintiff believes Plum, Inc. now claims its
`headquarters and principal place of business is located at 1 Campbell Place,
`Camden, NJ.
`29. Defendant Campbell, Defendant Plum, PBC, and Defendant Plum, Inc.
`(together, “Plum”) formulate, develop, manufacture, label, distribute, market,
`advertise, and sell under the baby food brand name Plum Organics throughout the
`United States, including in this District, during the Class Period (defined below).
`The advertising, labeling, and packaging for these products, relied upon by
`Plaintiff were prepared, reviewed, and/or approved by Plum Defendants and their
`
`_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
`Page 11
`COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION, Case No.
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-02519-JSC Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 12 of 346
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`agents, and were disseminated by Plum Defendants and its agents through
`marketing, advertising, packaging, and labeling that contained the
`misrepresentations alleged herein. The marketing, advertising, packaging, and
`labeling for these baby foods were designed to encourage consumers to purchase
`them and reasonably misled the reasonable consumer, i.e., Plaintiff and the Class,
`into purchasing them. Plum Defendants own, manufacture, and distribute the baby
`foods, and created, allowed, negligently oversaw, and/or authorized the unlawful,
`fraudulent, unfair, misleading, and/or deceptive labeling and advertising for the
`baby foods. Plum Defendants are responsible for sourcing ingredients,
`manufacturing the products, and conducting all relevant quality assurance
`protocols, including testing, for the ingredients and finished baby foods.
`30. Defendant Gerber Products Company (“Gerber”) (a/k/a Nestle
`Nutrition, Nestle Infant Nutrition or Nestle Nutrition North America) is
`incorporated in Michigan. Its headquarters and principal place of business is
`located at 1812 North Moore Street, Arlington, VA.
`31. Defendant Gerber formulates, develops, manufactures, labels,
`distributes, markets, advertises, and sells under the baby food brand name Gerber
`throughout the United States, including in this District, during the Class Period
`(defined below). The advertising, labeling, and packaging for these products, relied
`upon by Plaintiffs were prepared, reviewed, and/or approved by Defendant Gerber
`and its agents, and were disseminated by Defendant Gerber and its agents through
`marketing, advertising, packaging, and labeling that contained the
`misrepresentations alleged herein. The marketing, advertising, packaging, and
`labeling for these baby foods were designed to encourage consumers to purchase
`them and reasonably misled the reasonable consumer, i.e., Plaintiffs and the Class,
`into purchasing them. Defendant Gerber owns, manufactures, and distributes the
`baby foods, and created, allowed, negligently oversaw, and/or authorized the
`
`_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
`Page 12
`COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION, Case No.
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-02519-JSC Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 13 of 346
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`unlawful, fraudulent, unfair, misleading, and/or deceptive labeling and advertising
`for the baby foods. Defendant Gerber is responsible for sourcing ingredients,
`manufacturing the products, and conducting all relevant quality assurance
`protocols, including testing, for the ingredients and finished baby foods.
`32. Defendant Nurture, Inc. (“Nurture”) is incorporated in Delaware. Its
`headquarters and principal place of business is located at 1 Maple Avenue, White
`Plains, New York.
`33. Defendant Nurture formulates, develops, manufactures, labels,
`distributes, markets, advertises, and sells under the baby food brand names Happy
`Baby and Happy Family throughout the United States, including in this District,
`during the Class Period (defined below). The advertising, labeling, and packaging
`for these products, relied upon by Plaintiff were prepared, reviewed, and/or
`approved by Defendant and its agents, and were disseminated by Defendant
`Nurture and its agents through marketing, advertising, packaging, and labeling that
`contained the misrepresentations alleged herein. The marketing, advertising,
`packaging, and labeling for these baby foods were designed to encourage
`consumers to purchase them and reasonably misled the reasonable consumer, i.e.,
`Plaintiff and the Class, into purchasing them. Defendant Nurture owns,
`manufactures, and distributes the baby foods, and created, allowed, negligently
`oversaw, and/or authorized the unlawful, fraudulent, unfair, misleading, and/or
`deceptive labeling and advertising for the baby foods. Defendant Nurture is
`responsible for sourcing ingredients, manufacturing the products, and conducting
`all relevant quality assurance protocols, including testing, for the ingredients and
`finished baby foods.
`34. Collectively, Defendants Beech-Nut, Campbell, Plum, Gerber, and
`Nurture are referred to in this Complaint as “Manufacturer Defendants.”
`
`_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
`Page 13
`COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION, Case No.
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-02519-JSC Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 14 of 346
`
`35. Defendant Safeway Inc. is incorporated in Delaware. Its headquarters
`and principal place of business is located at 11555 Dublin Canyon Rd., Pleasanton,
`California.
`36. Defendant Safeway markets, distributes, advertises, and sells
`Manufacturer Defendants’ baby food products throughout the United States,
`including in this District, during the Class Period (defined below). Defendant
`Safeway and its agents reviewed and disseminated the advertising, marketing,
`labeling, and packaging for Manufacturer Defendants’ products including the
`materials relied upon by Plaintiff. The marketing and advertising for these baby
`foods were designed to encourage consumers to purchase them and reasonably
`misled the reasonable consumer into purchasing them. Defendant Safeway sells
`and distributes the baby foods, and created, allowed, negligently oversaw, and/or
`authorized the unlawful, fraudulent, unfair, misleading, and/or deceptive labeling
`and advertising for the baby foods.
`Jurisdiction
`II.
`37. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this class action pursuant
`to 18 U.S.C. § 1964(a) (civil RICO jurisdiction), 18 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal
`question jurisdiction), and 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(A) (CAFA jurisdiction).
`38. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, because
`Plaintiff has suffered injury as a result of Defendants’ acts in this District, many of
`the acts and transactions giving rise to this action occurred in this District,
`Defendants conduct substantial business in this District, Defendants have
`intentionally availed themselves of the laws, protections, and markets of this
`District, and Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this District.
`
`_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
`Page 14
`COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION, Case No.
`
`
`
`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 3:21-cv-02519-JSC Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 15 of 346
`
`
`
`III. Factual Background
`A. The baby food industry is a large, lucrative market driven by
`consumer demand for convenience and reassurances of safety.
`39. Baby food manufacturers know that there are few things as precious as
`a newborn baby and that parents want the very best for their children. Baby food
`manufacturers also know that many parents are willing to pay premium dollars to
`ensure the quality and healthiness of the products they feed their babies.
`40. Given this demand, the world market for infant formula and baby food
`is large, growing, and very competitive with a forecast market value of almost $99
`billion by 2024.11
`In the United States, the baby food market size was valued at $12.9
`41.
`billion in 2018 and is projected to reach $17.2 billion by 2026.12
`42. Baby food is the most purchased baby product category in U.S.
`supermarkets.
`43. A market research group notes that “[i]n the recent years, packaged
`baby food has been widely adopted by parents since it provides convenience and
`higher nutrition level. In addition, the rise in awareness among people about the
`numerous health advantages of feeding baby food to infants has significantly
`fueled the growth of the baby food market.”13
`44. The growth in the baby food market is also driven by rising numbers of
`women working outside the home. “As many working mothers return to their jobs
`
`
`11 Emma Bedford, U.S. baby food market - statistics & facts, STATISTA (Nov. 20,
`2020), https://www.statista.com/topics/1218/baby-food-market/.
`12 U.S. Baby Food Market Expected to Grow with a CAGR of 3.7% from 2019 to
`2026, BUSINESS WIRE (Mar. 3, 2020, 05:44 AM),
`https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200303005477/en/U.S.-Baby-Food-
`Market-Expected-to-Grow-with-a-CAGR-of-3.7-from-2019-to-2026---
`ResearchAndMarkets.com.
`13 Id.
`
`_____________

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