Case 3:22-cv-00403-DMS-JLB Document 1 Filed 03/28/22 PageID.1 Page 1 of 8
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`David T. Biderman, Bar No. 101577
`DBiderman@perkinscoie.com
`Jasmine W. Wetherell, Bar No. 288835
`JWetherell@perkinscoie.com
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`1888 Century Park E., Suite 1700
`Los Angeles, CA 90067-1721
`Telephone: 310.788.9900
`Facsimile: 310.843.1284
`
`Charles Sipos, WA Bar No. 32825
`pro hac vice forthcoming
`csipos@perkinscoie.com
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
`Seattle, WA 98101
`Telephone: 206.359.8000
`Facsimile: 206.359.9000
`Attorneys for GENERAL MILLS, INC., and
`GENERAL MILLS SALES, INC.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`LORETTA SCHWEINSBURG, on
`behalf of herself and all others similarly
`situated,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`GENERAL MILLS, INC.;
`GENERAL MILLS SALES, INC.;
`Defendants.
`
`Case No.
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL BY
`DEFENDANTS GENERAL MILLS
`INC., AND GENERAL MILLS
`SALES, INC.
`[Complaint filed February 23, 2022
`and removed from the Superior Court
`of the State of California in and for
`the County of San Diego, Case
`No. 37-2022-00006951-CU-BT-CTL]
`[Declaration of Matthew Teasdale in
`support thereof filed concurrently with
`this notice]
`Redacted Version
`
`
`
`138491020.2
`
`-1-
`
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`
`'22
`
`CV403
`
`JLB
`
`DMS
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00403-DMS-JLB Document 1 Filed 03/28/22 PageID.2 Page 2 of 8
`
`
`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
`
`TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d), 1441(a),
`and 1446, defendants GENERAL MILLS, INC. and GENERAL MILLS SALES,
`INC. (hereinafter “General Mills”), hereby remove to this Federal Court the state
`court action described below.
`I.
`THE STATE COURT ACTION
`On February 23, 2022, Plaintiff Loretta Schweinsburg commenced this case
`in the Superior Court of California in and for the County of San Diego, tilted
`Loretta Schweinsburg, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v.
`General Mills, Inc. and General Mills Sales, Inc.; Case No. 37-2022-00006951-
`CU-BT-CTL. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), a copy of the Complaint filed in that
`action is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Plaintiff served Defendants General Mills,
`Inc. and General Mills Sales, Inc. with a copy of the Complaint and Summons from
`the Superior Court on February 25, 2022. A copy of the Summons is attached
`hereto as Exhibit 2. A copy of the Civil Cover sheet is attached as Exhibit 3.
`The Complaint alleges two causes of action against Defendants: (1)
`California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.
`(unfair and unlawful prongs); and (2) breach of
`implied warranty of
`merchantability. Ex. 1 (Compl.) ¶¶ 134–52. Both claims arise out of General Mills’
`alleged “unfair” and/or “unlawful” use of partially hydrogenated oils as an
`ingredient in Hamburger Helper products. Id. ¶ 20–43, 88–89.1
`Plaintiff brings this action as a putative class action. See, e.g., id. ¶ 115. She
`seeks to represent a class of “[a]ll citizens of California who purchased Hamburger
`Helper, Tuna Helper, and/or Chicken Helper containing partially hydrogenated oil
`in California between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2016.” Id. ¶ 126. Plaintiff
`alleges that there are “thousands” of members of the putative class. Id. ¶ 131.
`
`1 The products at issue are: Hamburger Helper, Chicken Helper, and Tuna Helper. See Compl. ¶ 3.
`
`
`138491020.2
`
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00403-DMS-JLB Document 1 Filed 03/28/22 PageID.3 Page 3 of 8
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Plaintiff seeks, among other things, the following forms of relief: (1)
`“[d]eclaratory relief that the conduct alleged [in the Complaint] is unlawful; (2) an
`award of actual damages, (3) punitive damages, (4) “restitution of $60 million,” and
`(5) “[a]n award of attorney fees and costs.” Compl. at p. 23, XII. Prayer for Relief.
`II. GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL
`A. This Action Is Removable Under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005,
`28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d) and 1453.
`“[A]ny civil action brought in State court of which the district courts of the
`United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant . . . .” 28
`U.S.C. § 1441(a). This action is removable under § 1441 because the District
`Courts of the United States have original jurisdiction over it pursuant to the Class
`Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”). See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d); see also 28
`U.S.C. § 1453(b) (setting procedure for removing class actions).
`CAFA gives federal courts original jurisdiction over putative class actions in
`which: (1) the aggregate number of members in the proposed class is 100 or more;
`(2) the amount in controversy “exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive
`of interests and costs”; and (3) the parties are minimally diverse, meaning, “any
`member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any defendant.”
`28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2), (d)(5)(B). For the following reasons, and as shown in the
`accompanying declaration of Matthew Teasdale, these requirements are met here.
`1.
`This Is a Putative Class Action in Which the Aggregate Number of
`Members Is 100 or More
`This action is a putative class action within the meaning of CAFA. CAFA
`defines “class action” as “any civil action filed under rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
`Civil Procedure or similar State statute or rule of judicial procedure authorizing an
`action to be brought by 1 or more representative persons as a class action.” 28
`U.S.C. § 1332(d)(1)(B). Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to section 382 of the
`California Code of Civil Procedure, which authorizes “one or more [to] sue . . . for
`the benefit of all” when “the question is one of common or general interest, of
`
`
`
`138491020.2
`
`-3-
`
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00403-DMS-JLB Document 1 Filed 03/28/22 PageID.4 Page 4 of 8
`
`
`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
`
`many persons, or when the parties are numerous, and it is impracticable to bring
`them all before the court,” Cal. Civ. Pro. § 382. The requirements of class
`certification under § 382 “parallel those of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.” Vigil v. Naturals,
`2016 WL 6806206, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2016).
`Likewise, as Plaintiff alleges, the putative class contains 1000 or more
`members. See Compl. ¶ 119 (“The Class is sufficiently numerous, as it includes
`thousands of individuals . . .”).
`2.
`The Amount in Controversy Exceeds $5,000,000
`CAFA permits courts to aggregate the claims of the individual class members
`“to determine whether the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of
`$5,000,000, exclusive of interests and costs.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(6). Where, as
`here, the plaintiff does not allege an amount in controversy in the complaint, “a
`defendant can establish the amount in controversy by an unchallenged, plausible
`assertion of the amount in controversy in its notice of removal.” Ibarra v. Manheim
`Invs., 775 F.3d 1193, 1197–98 (9th Cir. 2015). If defendant’s assertions are
`challenged, it bears the burden of establishing the amount in controversy by a
`preponderance of the evidence. See Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v.
`Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547, 553–54 (2014). Defendant may submit this evidence in
`opposition to plaintiff’s motion to remand. Id. at 554.
`Here, Plaintiff’s request for damages places far more than $5,000,000 in
`controversy.2 See Compl. at p. 23. Plaintiff explicitly seeks $60 million in
`restitution, in addition to punitive damages. Id. Plaintiff alleges that she and class
`members “would not have purchased Hamburger Helper” had she known that the
`products contain partially hydrogenated oils (“PHOs”), and that she suffered
`physical and economic injury as a result of Defendants’ “decision to add trans fat to
`Hamburger Helper,” id. ¶ 112 & 143, meaning Defendants could be liable for the
`entire amount California consumers spent on the Hamburger Helper products
`
`2 Defendants dispute that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief.
`
`
`138491020.2
`
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00403-DMS-JLB Document 1 Filed 03/28/22 PageID.5 Page 5 of 8
`
`
`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
`
`during the Class Period, and more in the case of punitive damages. As detailed in
`the declaration of Matthew Teasdale filed in support of this Notice of Removal,
`Defendants sold more than $100 million worth of the Hamburger Helper products
`in California between January 2014 and December 2017, a mere 4 years of the 16-
`year Class Period. Teasdale Decl. ¶ 5. For these reasons, it is clear that the amount
`in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, and CAFA jurisdiction is proper.
`3.
`The Parties Are Minimally Diverse
`The parties are minimally diverse because “any member of [the class] of
`plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any defendant.” 28 U.S.C.
`§ 1332(d)(2)(A).
`is a citizen of California who—on
`Plaintiff Loretta Schweinsburg
`information and belief—is domiciled California. Compl. ¶ 12; see Rice v. Thomas,
`64 F. App’x 628, 628–29 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that an individual is domiciled
`in a place if she resides and has an intent to stay there). Plaintiff also seeks to
`represent a class of California consumers. Compl. ¶ 126. It is reasonable to assume
`that at least one of these consumers is domiciled in California.
`The Defendants are not citizens of California. General Mills, Inc., and
`General Mills Sales, Inc., are incorporated under the laws of Delaware, and their
`principal place of business is in Minneapolis, Minnesota. See Compl. ¶ 10; see
`Albino v. Standard Ins. Co., 349 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1337 (C.D. Cal. 2004) (for
`purposes of diversity jurisdiction, “[a] corporation is a citizen both of the state
`where it was incorporated and the state where it has its primary place of business”).
`Thus, both Defendants are citizens of different states from at least one Plaintiff, and
`CAFA’s minimal diversity requirements are met. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2).
`B. Venue and Intra-district Assignment Are Proper.
`The Southern District of California is the proper venue for this action upon
`removal because this district embraces the California Superior Court, County of
`
`
`
`138491020.2
`
`-5-
`
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00403-DMS-JLB Document 1 Filed 03/28/22 PageID.6 Page 6 of 8
`
`
`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
`
`San Diego, where the Complaint was filed and is currently pending. See 28 U.S.C.
`§ 1441(a).
`C. Defendants Have Satisfied All Other Requirements of the Removal
`Procedure
`This Notice of Removal is timely filed. General Mills was served with a copy
`of the Complaint and Summons on February 25, 2022. Defendants filed and served
`this Notice of Removal within 30 days of service of the Complaint in compliance
`with 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).
`As required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), true and correct copies of all process,
`pleadings, and orders served upon the Defendants are being filed herewith. Copies
`of the Complaint, the Civil Case Cover Sheet; and Summons are attached hereto as
`Exhibits 1–3. No other pleadings have been filed to date in this matter in the San
`Diego County Superior Court. A true and correct copy of the state court’s docket is
`attached hereto as Exhibit 4.
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), Defendants will promptly serve on Plaintiff
`and file with the Superior Court a “Notice to Adverse Party of Removal to Federal
`Court.” Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(d), Defendants will also file
`with this Court a “Certificate of Service of Notice to Adverse Party of Removal to
`Federal Court.”
`III. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS AND DEFENSES
`Defendants expressly reserve all of their defenses and rights, and none of the
`foregoing shall be construed as in any way conceding the truth of any of Plaintiff’s
`allegations or waiving any of Defendants’ defenses. See, e.g., Key v. DSW, Inc., 454
`F. Supp. 2d 684, 691 (S.D. Ohio 2006) (“[T]he fact that Defendant removed the
`case does not mean that Defendant concedes that Plaintiff has adequately alleged
`appropriate damages.”).
`
`
`
`138491020.2
`
`-6-
`
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00403-DMS-JLB Document 1 Filed 03/28/22 PageID.7 Page 7 of 8
`
`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
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`WHEREFORE, Defendants request that this Court consider this Notice of
`Removal as provided by law governing the removal of cases to this Court, that this
`Court take such steps as are necessary to achieve the removal of this matter to this
`Court from San Diego County Superior Court, and that this Court will make such
`other orders as may be appropriate to effect the preparation and filing of a true
`record in this cause of all proceedings that may have been had in the state court
`action.
`
`DATED: March 28, 2022
`
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`
`By: /s/ Jasmine W. Wetherell
`Jasmine W. Wetherell, Bar No. 288835
`JWetherell@perkinscoie.com
`David T. Biderman, Bar No. 101577
`DBiderman@perkinscoie.com
`Charles Sipos, pro hac vice forthcoming
`CSipos@perkinscoie.com
`Attorneys for GENERAL MILLS, INC.,
`and GENERAL MILLS SALES, INC.
`
`
`138491020.2
`
`-7-
`
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00403-DMS-JLB Document 1 Filed 03/28/22 PageID.8 Page 8 of 8
`
`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
`
`PROOF OF SERVICE BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
`I am a citizen of the United States and employed in San Diego County,
`California. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within-entitled
`action. My business address is 1888 Century Park East, Ste. 1700, CA 90067. On
`March 28, 2022, I deposited with Federal Express, a true and correct copy of the
`within documents:
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL AND EXHIBITS
`
`DECLARATION OF MATTHEW TEASDALE IN SUPPORT OF
`REMOVAL
`in a sealed envelope, addressed as follows:
`Gregory S. Weston
`THE WESTON FIRM
`1405 Morena Blvd. Ste. 201
`San Diego, California 92110
`Following ordinary business practices, the envelope was sealed and placed
`for collection by Federal Express on this date, and would, in the ordinary course of
`business, be retrieved by Federal Express for overnight delivery on this date.
`I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court
`at whose direction the service was made.
`Executed on March 28, 2022, at Los Angeles, California.
`
`Yolanda Mendez
`
`
`138491020.2
`
`-8-
`
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`
`