Case 5:18-cv-06664-BLF Document 42 Filed 03/30/20 Page 1 of 23
`
`
`
`RICHMAN LAW GROUP
`Clark A. Binkley (Pro Hac Vice)
`cbinkley@richmanlawgroup.com
`Jaime Mak (SBN 236505)
`jmak@richmanlawgroup.com
`535 Mission Street
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Telephone: (415) 259-5688
`Facsimile: (718) 228-8522
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`HAWYUAN YU, on behalf of himself and
`all others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`
`
`DR PEPPER SNAPPLE GROUP, INC., 5301
`Legacy Drive, Plano, Texas 75024, and MOTT’S
`LLP, 900 King Street, Rye Brook, NY 10573
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
` Case No.: 5:18-cv-06664-BLF
`
`
`AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`)
`
`
`On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff Hawyuan Yu (the “Plaintiff”),
`by and through his counsel, brings this action under the California Unfair Competition Law Cal. Bus.
`and Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. (the “UCL”), the False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. and Prof. Code §
`17500 (the “FAL”), the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et seq. (the “CLRA”),
`and common law, against Dr Pepper Snapple Group Inc. (“Dr Pepper”) and Mott’s, LLP, a wholly
`owned subsidiary of Dr Pepper, (collectively, “Defendants”) for misleading consumers about the
`nature of several applesauce and apple juice products that were or are sold under the “Mott’s” brand
`name with the representation “All Natural Ingredients” and/or “Natural,” despite containing residue
`
`- 1 -
`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 5:18-cv-06664-BLF Document 42 Filed 03/30/20 Page 2 of 23
`
`
`
`of a synthetic pesticide linked to bee colony collapse and other serious environmental and public
`health harms. Plaintiff alleges the following based upon information, belief, and the investigation of
`his counsel:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`1.
`Defendants sell several applesauce and apple juice products, including Mott’s Natural
`Unsweetened Applesauce, Mott’s Healthy Harvest Applesauce varieties, Mott’s Natural 100% Juice
`Apple Juice, and other varieties of “Mott’s” brand applesauce and apple juice products sold with the
`representation “All Natural Ingredients” and/or “Natural” (collectively, the “Products”).1
`2.
`Defendants sell the Products with such representations in order to take advantage of
`the increased demand for “natural” food products that provide assurances regarding how they are
`produced and prepared—that is, products that are free from unnatural ingredients, synthetic
`chemicals, or other remnants of artificial or extensive processing.
`3.
`Consumers, as Defendants know, are willing to pay more for products marketed as
`“natural” than they are willing to pay for competing products that are not marketed as such.
`4.
` During the applicable limitations period, Defendants have engaged in a uniform
`marketing and advertising program throughout California and the rest of the United States
`representing that the Products are “natural” when they are not. These representations are prominently
`displayed on the Products’ labels.
`5.
`Specifically, Defendants represent the Products as made of “All Natural Ingredients”
`or as otherwise “natural” in at least two ways. First, Defendants represent that their applesauce
`contains “All Natural Ingredients.” As seen in the representative images below, this representation is
`made prominently on the front of the package, in a blue badge that also informs the consumer that the
`applesauce does not contain added sugar or vitamin C. This representation is placed on the label
`adjacent to the label identifying the flavor or variety of the applesauce.
`
`
`
`1 Recently, Defendants have discontinued offering the applesauce products labeled as “Natural” and may discontinue
`the apple juice or else may introduce (or reintroduce) new products that are also falsely labeled as made of “All Natural
`Ingredients,” “Natural,” or other similarly misleading representations. Plaintiff reserves the right to add or remove
`products to the definition of this Complaint as they become known.
`- 2 -
`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 5:18-cv-06664-BLF Document 42 Filed 03/30/20 Page 3 of 23
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`6.
`Second, as seen in the representative images above, Defendants previously sold a
`variety of applesauce identified as “natural” in order to differentiate it from other varieties, such as
`cinnamon-flavored or organic applesauce. The “natural” label conveyed to consumers that there is
`nothing unnatural in this variety of applesauce.
`7.
`Defendants currently also produce and market a variety of apple juice that is labeled
`“Natural.” This labeling also conveys to consumers that there is nothing unnatural in the apple juice,
`as seen in the representative image below.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-06664-BLF Document 42 Filed 03/30/20 Page 4 of 23
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`8.
`Defendants’ “All Natural Ingredients” and “Natural” statements deceive and mislead
`consumers into believing the Products contain nothing unnatural or synthetic.
`9.
`As a direct result of Defendants’ deceptive statements concerning the nature of the
`Products, Plaintiff and the Class members paid a premium for the Products.
`10.
`The Products, which are sold in numerous supermarket chains within the state of
`California and nationally, are not “natural.” Instead, the Products contain residues of a synthetic and
`unnatural chemical, specifically, acetamiprid.
`11.
`Acetamiprid is not “natural.”
`12.
`Acetamiprid is a synthetic neonicotinoid insecticidal neurotoxin that may be hazardous
`to human development and to other animals, including the honeybee.
`
`- 4 -
`AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-06664-BLF Document 42 Filed 03/30/20 Page 5 of 23
`
`
`
`13.
`Acetamiprid is “legal” in connection with food products, insofar as the law does not
`preclude the use of acetamiprid in treating and harvesting crops and has made allowances for certain
`amounts of residues to remain on fruits and vegetables before they are delivered to the end user to be
`cleaned and consumed.
`14.
`Defendants, however, did not and do not claim that the Products are simply “legal”;
`instead, Defendants claim the Products contain nothing but “All Natural Ingredients” or are “natural.”
`15.
`Reasonable consumers who see Defendants’ representations that the Products contain
`“All Natural Ingredients” or are “natural” expect the Products to meet a higher standard than
`competing products not advertised as “natural,” and do not expect the Products to contain traces of a
`synthetic insecticide.
`16.
`By deceiving consumers about the nature and quality of the Products, Defendants are
`able to sell a greater volume of product; to charge higher prices for the Products; to take away market
`share from competing products, thereby increasing sales and profits; to deny consumers the ability to
`use their purchasing dollars as they see fit; and to affect the market for truly natural products.
`17.
`Consumers lack the scientific knowledge necessary to determine whether the Products
`contain anything except “All Natural Ingredients,” whether the Products are “natural,” or to know or
`ascertain the true contents and quality of the Products.
`18.
`Reasonable consumers must rely and do rely on Defendants to report honestly which
`substances the Products contain, and whether the Products contain only “All Natural Ingredients” or
`whether the Products are “natural.”
`19.
`The presence of acetamiprid can be ascertained only through a chemical study far
`beyond a reasonable inquiry that a consumer could be expected to do in a supermarket aisle. Thus,
`when deciding which products to buy, consumers must rely on affirmative representations made by
`Defendants, such as “All Natural Ingredients” and “Natural.”
`20.
`Defendants were motivated to mislead consumers for no other reason than to command
`more favorable pricing and/or to take away market share from competing products, thereby increasing
`the Products’ sales and profits.
`
`
`- 5 -
`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 5:18-cv-06664-BLF Document 42 Filed 03/30/20 Page 6 of 23
`
`
`
`21.
`Because the Products contain a synthetic and unnatural chemical, Defendants’ claims
`on the Products’ labeling and in the Products’ marketing that the Products are made of “All Natural
`Ingredients” and/or are “natural” are false and misleading.
`22.
`Because Defendants’ labeling and advertising of the Products tends to mislead and is
`materially deceptive about the true nature and quality of the Products, Plaintiff brings this deceptive
`advertising case on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and seeks monetary and
`injunctive relief, including an order halting Defendants’ false marketing and sale of the Products.
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`23.
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over the parties in this case. Plaintiff Yu is a
`citizen of California within this District, and by filing this Complaint, Plaintiff consents to this Court
`having personal jurisdiction over him. Defendant purposefully avails itself of the laws of California
`to market, promote, distribute, and sell the Products to consumers in California and in this District.
`24.
`This Court has original subject-matter jurisdiction over this proposed class action
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), which, under the provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act,
`explicitly provides for the original jurisdiction of the federal courts in any class action in which the
`proposed plaintiff class is comprised of at least 100 members, any member of the plaintiff class is a
`citizen of a State different from any defendant, and the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of
`$5,000,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. Plaintiffs allege that the total claims of individual
`members of the proposed Class (as defined herein) are well in excess of $5,000,000.00 in the
`aggregate, exclusive of interest and costs.
`25.
`Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a). Substantial acts in
`furtherance of the alleged improper conduct, including the dissemination of false and misleading
`information regarding the nature, quality, and/or ingredients of the Products, occurred within this
`District.
`
`INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
`26.
`Assignment to the San Jose Division is appropriate under Civil L.R. 3-2(c) and (e)
`because a substantial part of the events or omissions that give rise to the claim—including the
`dissemination of false and misleading information regarding the nature, quality, and/or ingredients of
`
`- 6 -
`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 5:18-cv-06664-BLF Document 42 Filed 03/30/20 Page 7 of 23
`
`
`
`the Products —occurred within the Counties of Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Benito, or Monterey.
`PARTIES
`27.
`Plaintiff Hawyuan Yu is an individual consumer who, at all relevant times, was a
`citizen of San Francisco County, California.
`28.
`During the class period, Plaintiff purchased Mott’s Natural Applesauce and Natural
`Apple Juice on multiple occasions from a Costco Warehouse located at 150 Lawrence Station Rd,
`Sunnyvale, CA 94086 and a Safeway Store located at 6150 Bollinger Rd, San Jose, CA 95129.
`29.
`In deciding to make his purchases, Plaintiff saw, relied upon, and reasonably believed
`Defendants’ representations that their Products were “natural” and made of “All Natural Ingredients.”
`30.
`Plaintiff is willing to pay more for Defendants’ Products because he expected the
`Products to be free of insecticides and other unnatural chemicals.
`31.
`At all times mentioned herein, Defendant Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. was a
`corporation organized under the laws of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 5301 Legacy
`Drive, Plano, TX 75024. Dr Pepper is in the business of developing, manufacturing, distributing, and
`selling beverages and snack products under various brands, including the Mott’s brand.
`32.
`At all times mentioned herein, Defendant Mott’s, LLP operates as a subsidiary of Dr
`Pepper. Mott’s, LLP is organized under the laws of Delaware, with its principal place of business at
`900 King Street, Rye Brook, NY 10573. Mott’s, LLP is a nationally and internationally prominent
`maker of fruit snacks, applesauce, apple juices, and fruit rolls.
`33.
`Defendants manufacture and/or cause the manufacture of the Products, which
`Defendants market and distribute in retail stores in California and throughout the United States.
`SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS
`34.
`Plaintiff brings this suit against Defendants based on misrepresentations and omissions
`committed by Defendants regarding the Products, which Defendants falsely and deceptively label and
`market as made of “All Natural Ingredients” and/or as “Natural,” when in fact the Products contain
`acetamiprid, which is not natural.
`35.
`Defendants know that consumers seek out and wish to purchase natural foods that do
`not contain artificial chemicals, and that consumers will pay more for foods that they believe to be
`
`- 7 -
`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 5:18-cv-06664-BLF Document 42 Filed 03/30/20 Page 8 of 23
`
`
`
`natural than they will pay for foods that they do not believe to be natural.
`36.
` To capture this market, Defendants market the Products as made of “All Natural
`Ingredients” and/or as “Natural.”
`A.
`Defendants Falsely Claim the Products Are Made of “All Natural Ingredients” and/or
`Are “Natural.”
`
`37.
`Defendants’ representations that the Products are made of “All Natural Ingredients”
`and/or are “Natural” are false and misleading because a reasonable consumer believes that Products
`that are “natural” do not contain a synthetic and unnatural pesticide, even in residual amounts. In fact,
`however, the Products contain acetamiprid.
`38.
`Regarding consumer understanding, for example, a study conducted in January 2019
`concluded that 68.1% more consumers perceive crops “sprayed with synthetic pesticides” to be
`“unnatural” than “natural.”2 Thus, if the Products are produced with crops sprayed with a synthetic
`pesticide like acetamiprid, reasonable consumers do not perceive the Products to be “natural.”
`39.
`By way of further example, in 2015, the Consumer Reports National Research Center
`conducted a nationally representative phone survey to assess consumer opinion regarding food
`labeling. In that survey, 63% of all respondents said that a “natural” label on packaged and processed
`foods means that “no toxic pesticides were used.”3 Thus, if toxic pesticides were used at any point
`during production, reasonable consumers do not consider the Products to be “natural.”
`40.
`Acetamiprid, a pesticide of the neonicotinoid class, is widely considered to be a “toxic
`pesticide.” See infra ¶ 43.
`41.
`Nowhere on the Products’ packaging or on Defendants’ website do Defendants
`mention the residues of synthetic chemicals in their purportedly “natural” Products, or how such
`adulteration may have occurred.
`42.
`liquid
`laboratory using
`independent
`Quantitative
`testing conducted by an
`chromatography mass spectrometry with a reporting limit of 0.01 parts per million (ppm) revealed
`
`
`
`2 Jayson L. Lusk, Consumer Perceptions of Healthy and Natural Food Labels, 29 (Jan. 15, 2019),
`https://bit.ly/2Hy06ML.
`3 Consumer Reports National Research Center, Natural Food Labels Survey (2015), https://foodpolitics.com/wp-
`content/uploads/Consumer-Reports-Natural-Food-Labels-Survey-Report.pdf.
`- 8 -
`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 5:18-cv-06664-BLF Document 42 Filed 03/30/20 Page 9 of 23
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`the amount of acetamiprid in Mott’s Natural Unsweetened Applesauce to be 0.06 ppm and the amount
`of acetamiprid in Mott’s Natural 100% Juice Apple Juice to be 0.02 ppm.
`B.
`Acetamiprid Is Not Natural.
`
`43.
`Acetamiprid is a synthetically created neonicotinoid insecticidal neurotoxin.4
`44.
`Neonicotinoids like acetamiprid are “systemic” insecticides. Systemic insecticides are
`absorbed into the plant to be distributed throughout the plant, into the fibers, pollen, and nectar.
`Systemic insecticides kill insects in two different ways: Insects die when they come into contact with
`the pesticide, as when they are sprayed with it, and also when they ingest the plant which has absorbed
`the pesticide.
`45.
`Neonicotinoids like acetamiprid are believed to play a role in “colony collapse
`disorder” and pose a risk to honeybees and other pollinators necessary for functioning ecosystems
`and agriculture.5
`46.
`Reasonable consumers do not expect acetamiprid to be present in applesauce made of
`“All Natural Ingredients” or in “natural” applesauce or apple juice.
`47.
`The Consumer Reports survey cited above further found that “reducing exposure to
`pesticides” and “protecting the environment from chemicals” were ranked as “very important” or
`“important” by almost 90% of “U.S. consumers when shopping for food.”6 Thus, consumers who
`select “natural” products likely do so for reasons including (1) a desire to protect themselves from
`
`
`
`4 Environmental Protection Agency, Acetamiprid: Pesticide Fact Sheet (Mar. 15, 2002),
`https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/reg_actions/registration/fs_PC-099050_15-Mar-02.pdf.
`5 See, e.g., What the Science Shows, Beyond Pesticides, https://beyondpesticides.org/programs/bee-protective-pollinators-
`and-pesticides/what-the-science-shows (“Bumblebees who consumed 0.515 or 5.15 ng of [neonicotinoids] were
`significantly less likely to sonicate after treatment than bees who consumed no [neonicotinoids]. At the end of the
`experiment, the study classified bees as dead or alive; our data suggest a trend of increasing mortality with higher doses .
`. . . [N]ew research strengthens arguments for the imposition of a moratorium, in particular because it has become evident
`that [neonicotinoids] pose significant risks to many non-target organisms, not just bees. Given the improvement in
`scientific knowledge of how neonicotinoids move into the wider environment from all crop types, a discussion of the risks
`posed by their use on non-flowering crops and in non-agricultural areas is urgently needed.”) (citations omitted); see also
`Stephanie Strom, The Bee Mogul, N.Y. Times (Feb. 16, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/business/a-bee-
`mogul-confronts-the-crisis-in-his-field.html; Elizabeth Grossman, Declining Bee Populations Pose a Threat to Global
`Agriculture,
`Yale
`Environment
`360
`(Apr.
`30,
`2013),
`http://e360.yale.edu/features/declining_bee_populations_pose_a_threat_to_global_agriculture; Jennifer Hopwood, et al.,
`How Neonicotinoids Can Kill Bees: The Science Behind The Role These Insecticides Play In Harming Bees: 2d Ed., The
`Xerces
`Society
`for
`Invertebrate Conservation,
`4
`(Mar.
`15,
`2002),
`http://www.xerces.org/wp-
`content/uploads/2016/10/HowNeonicsCanKillBees_XercesSociety_Nov2016.pdf.
`6 Consumer Reports, supra note 3.
`
`- 9 -
`AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-06664-BLF Document 42 Filed 03/30/20 Page 10 of 23
`
`
`
`any exposure to pesticides, and (2) a desire to keep such chemicals out of the environment. A Product
`containing the residue of acetamiprid is antithetical to both these intentions.
`48.
`For the nearly 90% of consumers seeking to purchase “natural” foods in order to
`protect the environment, acetamiprid is of particular concern. As explained above, neonicotinoid
`pesticides like acetamiprid have been linked by well-publicized scientific studies to the decline in bee
`populations and resulting environmental harms.7 Regardless of whether the levels of acetamiprid
`found in the final Products can be classified as residual, the presence of acetamiprid in any amount is
`evidence that the Products are not produced in a manner consistent with reasonable consumer
`expectations about “natural” foods.
`49.
`Thus, acetamiprid represents exactly the kind of unnatural chemical that consumers
`shopping for “natural” foods are seeking to avoid, both in the foods they and their families eat, and
`in the environment, where they believe its use to be harmful.
`50.
`Defendants’ representations that the Products are made of “All Natural Ingredients”
`and/or are “natural” are false, and labeling or advertising the Products as such is misleading and
`deceptive.
`C.
`Defendants’ Labels Are Misleading and Omit Material Facts.
`51.
`Upon information and belief, Defendants have profited enormously from their falsely
`marketed Products and their carefully orchestrated labels and images.
`52.
`Representing that a product is made of “All Natural Ingredients” and/or is “natural” is
`a statement of fact.
`53.
`Failing to clarify what is meant by “All Natural Ingredients” or “natural” when that
`meaning deviates from reasonable consumer expectations is an omission of relevant fact.
`54.
`Consumers reasonably believe that a product represented as made of “All Natural
`Ingredients” and/or as “natural” does not contain any synthetic or unnatural chemicals.
`55. Only Defendants know the methods by which the Products are grown, harvested, and
`processed or what would account for the presence of acetamiprid residue in the Products. Defendants’
`
`
`
`7 See supra note 5.
`
`- 10 -
`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 5:18-cv-06664-BLF Document 42 Filed 03/30/20 Page 11 of 23
`
`
`
`concealment tolls applicable statutes of limitations.
`56. To this day, Defendants continue to conceal and suppress the true nature, identity,
`source, and method of production of the Products here at issue.
`57. Defendants know and intend that when consumers see product labels or
`advertisements promising a product is made of “All Natural Ingredients” or is “natural,” consumers
`will understand that to mean that, at the very least, the product does not contain any synthetic and
`unnatural or potentially harmful chemicals.
`58. Defendants know what representations are made on the labels of the Products.
`Defendants also know how the Products were grown, harvested, and processed, and that the Products
`are likely to contain acetamiprid when delivered to the end user.
`59. Defendants thus knew all the facts demonstrating that the Products were mislabeled
`and falsely advertised.
`D.
`Defendants Knew the Representations Were False and Intended for Consumers to Rely
`on the Misrepresentations and Omissions.
`
`60.
`Defendants hold themselves out to the public as trusted experts in the production of
`applesauce, apple juice, and other apple and fruit products.
`61.
`Defendants knew, or should have known, the facts demonstrating that the Products
`were mislabeled and falsely advertised.
`62.
`Consumers frequently rely on label representations and information in making
`purchase decisions, especially when purchasing food.
`63.
`In making the false, misleading, and deceptive representations and omissions at issue,
`Defendants knew and intended that consumers would purchase the Products when consumers would
`otherwise purchase a competing product.
`64.
`Consumers were deceived into believing that the Products are made of “All Natural
`Ingredients” and/or are “natural” and that the Products contained nothing synthetic or unnatural.
`65.
`Consumers cannot discover the true nature of the Products from reading the labels.
`Consumers could not discover the true nature of the Products even by visiting Defendants’ websites,
`which make no mention of acetamiprid.
`
`- 11 -
`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 5:18-cv-06664-BLF Document 42 Filed 03/30/20 Page 12 of 23
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`66.
`Upon information and belief, Defendants have failed to remedy the problems with the
`Products, have continued to sell products falsely labeled as “natural,” or may introduce additional
`products also falsely labeled as “natural,” thus causing future harm to consumers.
`67.
`Consumers are at risk of real, immediate, and continuing harm if the Products continue
`to be sold as is, labeled as unqualifiedly “natural,” and without explaining that the term does not mean
`what consumers reasonably perceive it to mean.
`68.
`Defendants have failed to provide adequate relief to purchasers as of the date of this
`complaint.
`69.
`Plaintiff contends that the Products were sold pursuant to unfair and unconscionable
`trade practices, because the sale of the Products offends public policy and is immoral, unethical,
`oppressive, unscrupulous, and caused substantial economic injuries to consumers.
`70.
`Defendants’ statements and other representations convey a series of express and
`implied claims and/or omissions that Defendants know are material to the reasonable consumer in
`making a purchasing decision, and that Defendants intended for consumers to rely upon when
`choosing to purchase the Products.
`71.
`Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief in the form of an order declaring
`Defendants’ conduct to be unlawful, as well as injunctive relief putting an end to Defendants’
`misleading and unfair business practices, including a change to the current Products’ labels and
`marketing,8 unless Defendants choose to reformulate the Products so that the Products conform with
`the marketing representations.
`
`CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`72.
`Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
`on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals within the United States (the “Class”
`or the “Nationwide Class”), defined as follows:
`All consumers who purchased the Products that were labeled made of “All Natural
`Ingredients” and/or “Natural” within the United States during the statute of
`
`
`
`8 For the avoidance of any confusion, Plaintiff clarifies that he does not seek an order compelling Defendants to label
`the Products as containing pesticide residue, but instead an order compelling Defendants to either remove or clarify the
`“natural” representations.
`
`- 12 -
`AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-06664-BLF Document 42 Filed 03/30/20 Page 13 of 23
`
`
`
`limitations period and until the date of class certification.
`
`73.
`Excluded from the Class are (1) Defendants, any entity or division in which a
`Defendant has a controlling interest, and its legal representatives, officers, directors, assigns, and
`successors; and (2) the judge to whom this case is assigned and the judge’s staff.
`74.
`Additionally, Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
`Civil Procedure on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated California citizens (the
`“California Subclass”) defined as follows:
`
`All consumers who purchased the Products that were labeled made of “All Natural
`Ingredients” and/or “Natural” within California during the statute of limitations
`period and until the date of class certification.
`
`
`75.
`Excluded from the California Subclass are (1) Defendants, any entity or division in
`which a Defendant has a controlling interest, and its legal representatives, officers, directors, assigns,
`and successors; and (2) the judge to whom this case is assigned and the judge’s staff.
`76.
`There are substantial questions of law and fact common to all members of the
`Nationwide Class, which will predominate over any individual issues. These common questions of
`law and fact include, without limitation:
`(a)
`whether Defendants’ practices and representations related to the marketing, labeling
`and sales of its Products were unfair, deceptive, fraudulent, and/or unlawful in any
`respect;
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`(e)
`
`whether Defendants breached a warranty created through the labeling and marketing
`of its Products;
`
`whether Defendants’ conduct as set forth above injured Plaintiff and Class members;
`
`whether Plaintiff and Class members are entitled to injunctive relief; and
`
`whether Defendants have been unjustly enriched as a result of the unlawful,
`fraudulent, and unfair conduct alleged in this Complaint such that it would be
`
`- 13 -
`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 5:18-cv-06664-BLF Document 42 Filed 03/30/20 Page 14 of 23
`
`
`
`inequitable for Defendants to retain the benefits conferred upon Defendants by
`Plaintiff and the Class.
`
`77. With respect to the California Subclass, additional questions of law and fact common
`to the members that predominate over questions that may affect individual members include without
`limitation:
`(a)
`
`whether Defendants advertised the Products with the intent not to sell them as
`advertised in violation of California Civil Code § 1770(a)(9);
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`(e)
`
`(f)
`
`(g)
`
`whether Defendants represented on packaging for the Products that the Products had
`characteristics, ingredients, uses, or benefits that they do not have in violation of
`California Civil Code §1770(a)(5);
`
`whether Defendants represented the Products as of a particular standard, quality, or
`grade, when they were of another in violation of California Civil Code §1770(a)(7);
`
`whether Defendants are subject to liability for violating California’s Consumers Legal
`Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750-1784;
`
`whether Defendants have violated California’s False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. &
`Prof. Code §§ 17500-17536;
`
`whether Defendant has violated California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. &
`Prof. Code §§ 17200-17210; and
`
`whether the Class is entitled to an award of restitution pursuant to California Business
`and Professions Code § 17203.
`
`78.
` Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class and the California Subclass.
`Plaintiff is a member of a well-defined class of similarly situated persons and the members of the
`Class and the California Subclass were similarly affected by Defendants’ conduct and are owed the
`same relief, as alleged in this Complaint. Members of the Class and the California Subclass are
`
`- 14 -
`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 5:18-cv-06664-BLF Document 42 Filed 03/30/20 Page 15 of 23
`
`
`
`ascertainable from Plaintiff’s description of the class, Defendants’ records, and records of third parties
`accessible through discovery.
`79.
`Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class and the California
`Subclass and has no interests which are antagonistic to the claims of the Class or the California
`Subclass. Plaintiff will vigorously pursue the claims of the Class and the California Subclass.
`80.
`Plaintiff has retained counsel who are competent and experienced in consumer
`protection litigation, including class actions relating to false advertising. Plaintiff’s counsel has
`successfully represented plaintiffs in complex class actions and currently represent other plaintiffs in
`several similar complex class action litigations involving false advertising.
`81.
` A class action provides a fair and efficient method, if not the only method, for
`adjudicating this controversy. The substantive claims of Plaintiff and the Class and the California
`Subclass are nearly identical and will require evidentiary proof of the same kind and application of
`the same laws. There is no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy other than by maintenance of this class
`ac