`
`
`
`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.
`
`_____________