Case 3:22-cv-00855-MMA-AGS Document 1 Filed 06/10/22 PageID.1 Page 1 of 14
`
`
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`Joel D. Smith (State Bar No. 244902)
`1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
`Walnut Creek, CA 94596
`Telephone: (925) 300-4455
`Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
`E-Mail: jsmith@bursor.com
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`Frederick J. Klorczyk III (State Bar No. 320783)
`888 Seventh Avenue
`New York, NY 10019
`Telephone: (646) 837-7150
`Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
`Email: fklorczyk@bursor.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`MARY YOON, individually and on behalf
`of all others similarly situated,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`Case No.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`BEYOND MEAT, INC., a Delaware
`Corporation
`
`v.
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`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
`
`
`'22
`
`CV0855
`
`AGS
`
`MMA
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00855-MMA-AGS Document 1 Filed 06/10/22 PageID.2 Page 2 of 14
`
`
`
`
`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 Mary Yoon (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all others
`similarly situated, by and through her attorneys, makes the following allegations
`pursuant to the investigation of her counsel and based upon information and belief,
`except as to allegations specifically pertaining to herself and her counsel, which are
`based on personal knowledge.
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`1.
`This is a putative class action against Defendant Beyond Meat, Inc.
`(“Beyond Meat” or “Defendant”).
`2.
`Beyond Meat manufactures, advertises, and sells plant-based meat
`substitute products, such as the plant-based ground beef, sausages, meatballs, and
`hamburger patties.
`3.
`Beyond Meat claims that its products provide “equal or superior protein”
`as compared to real meat, but that is false.
`4.
`Two different U.S. laboratories have independently and separately
`conducted testing on a wide range of Beyond Meat products. The test results were
`consistent with each other: the results of both tests show that Beyond Meat products
`contain significantly less protein than what is stated on the product packaging.
`5.
`As such, Defendant has engaged in widespread false and deceptive
`conduct by overstating the amount of protein in its products.
`6.
` Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendant violations of the California
`Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code § 1750, et. seq. (“CLRA”),
`violation of the Unfair Competition Law, California Business & Professions Code
`§ 17200, and unjust enrichment.
`THE PARTIES
`7.
`Plaintiff Mary Yoon is domiciled in Corona, California.
`8. Ms. Yoon purchased Beyond Meat’s Beyond Burger Plant-Based Patties
`several times starting in approximately January 2020.
`9.
`Beyond Meat products are sold at many stores in and around Corona,
`1
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00855-MMA-AGS Document 1 Filed 06/10/22 PageID.3 Page 3 of 14
`
`
`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
`
`
`California, such as Vons, Target, and Albertsons. Ms. Yoon purchased the products
`at the Vons and Target stores in her area. To the best of her recollection, Ms. Yoon
`paid approximately $5-6 dollars for the product, which is the typical price range for
`the Beyond Burger Plant-Based Patties.
`10. When Ms. Yoon purchased the products, she relied on various labeling
`representations about the nutritional qualities of the product, including that it had 20
`grams of plant protein per serving, and a daily protein value of 40%. Ms. Yoon read
`and relied on both the front labeling, and the nutrition information on the back of the
`package.
`11. However, the Patties Ms. Yoon purchased did not have 20 grams of
`protein per serving, and did not provide a daily protein value of 40%. Instead, the
`products would have had approximately 18 grams of protein, and an actual daily
`protein value of approximately 35%.
`12. Ms. Yoon would not have purchased the Patties if she had known at the
`time that the labeling was false.
`13. Ms. Yoon overpaid for the products as a result of the false labeling.
`14. Ms. Yoon regularly goes to stores where Beyond Meat Products are sold.
`Plaintiff would purchase Beyond Meat Products again in the future if the products
`accurately disclosed the amount of protein in them. However, if that change were
`made, Plaintiff would have no way to know if the product labeling was in fact true.
`As a result, she may either refrain from purchasing Beyond Meat Products in the
`future or may purchase them incorrectly assuming that they have been improved such
`that the labeling disclosing the amount of protein in them per serving is correct.
`15. Defendant, Beyond Meat, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation with its
`headquarters in El Segundo, California.
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`16. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`§ 1332(d)(2)(A) because this case is a class action where the aggregate claims of all
`2
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00855-MMA-AGS Document 1 Filed 06/10/22 PageID.4 Page 4 of 14
`
`
`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
`
`
`members of the proposed class are in excess of $5,000,000.00, exclusive of interest
`and costs, and at least one member of the proposed class is citizen of state different
`from Defendant.
`17. Personal jurisdiction is proper because Defendant is a resident of
`California. Defendant also regularly and continuously transacts business in
`California, including selling and falsely marketing products throughout the State.
`18. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 1391(c) because
`Defendant resides in this district and market and falsely advertise its products here.
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`19. Products At Issue (the “what”): All of Defendant’s Beyond Meat
`products, including but not limited to Sausage Plant-Based Dinner Links Hot Italian
`14 oz, Beyond Sausage Plant-Based Dinner Sausage Links Brat Original 14 oz,
`Beyond Beef Plant-Based Patties, Beyond Beef Plant-Based Ground Beef, Beyond
`Breakfast Sausage Plant-Based Breakfast Patties Classic, Beyond Breakfast Sausage
`Plant-Based Breakfast Patties Spicy, Beyond Chicken Plant-Based Breaded Tenders
`Classic, Beyond Meatballs Italian Style Plant-Based Meatballs, Beyond Meat Beyond
`Breakfast Sausage Plant-Based Breakfast Links Classic (“Beyond Meat Products” or
`the “Products”).
`20. Relevant Time Period (the “when”): All of the misrepresentations at
`issue here were uniformly and consistently made at all times during the last four
`years, at least. There have been no material changes to the product labeling during
`the relevant period.
`21. Labeling At Issue (the “where”): For all Products at issue, the labeling
`describes the amount of protein, expressed in grams per serving and as a “Daily
`Value” (or “DV”). The Daily Value is printed on nutrition fact labels as “% DV” or
`“% Daily Value.” Daily Value plays an important role in food labeling because the
`information allows people to judge the nutrient content of food products.
`22. For example, the front packaging of the Beyond Burger Patties states in
`3
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00855-MMA-AGS Document 1 Filed 06/10/22 PageID.5 Page 5 of 14
`
`
`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
`
`
`large, bold lettering that the products have “20 grams of plant protein per serving”:
`
`
`23. The nutrition label on the back of the Beyond Burger Patties likewise
`states that the product contains 20 grams of protein per serving, and a 40% daily
`protein value.
`24. Other Beyond Meat Products similarly include a statement on the front
`about the number of grams of protein, and a statement on the nutrition label repeating
`the number of grams of protein, and a statement of the percentage of daily protein
`value.
`25. Misrepresentations at Issue (the “why”):
`26. Protein is an essential part of a healthy diet. Many consumers seek out
`high-protein products due to the benefits of protein. In addition, vegetarians often
`find it challenging to get sufficient protein intake in their diets, and therefore seek out
`products like the Products at issue here.
`27. The Food and Drug Administration requires manufacturers to publish a
`product’s protein content on its nutritional label, which is a statement of the number
`of grams of protein in a serving.
`28. Generally, the “Nitrogen Content Method” is used to calculate the
`
`4
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00855-MMA-AGS Document 1 Filed 06/10/22 PageID.6 Page 6 of 14
`
`
`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
`
`
`protein content of a food product. Under this methodology, protein content is
`calculated on the basis of the factor of 6.25 times the nitrogen content of the food as
`determined by the appropriate method of analysis as given in the “Official Methods
`of Analysis of the AOAC International,” unless there is an official procedure for a
`specific food that requires another factor.
`29. However, the nitrogen method is not the most accurate way to describe
`protein content, and federal law requires disclosure of protein quality, which is
`determined through a more rigorous testing methodology called the Protein
`Digestibility Amino Acid Corrected Score (“PDCAAS”) to calculate the “corrected
`amount of protein per serving.
`30. The “corrected amount of protein (gram) per serving” is equal to the
`actual amount of protein (gram) per serving multiplied by the amino acid score
`corrected for protein digestibility. The protein digestibility corrected amino acid
`score is determined by methods given in the “Protein Quality Evaluation, Report of
`the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Protein Quality Evaluation,” Rome,
`1990.
`31. By law, Beyond Meat is required to use the PDCAAS calculation for the
`Products rather than some other less-sophisticated method. For any product making a
`protein claim, the product must contain a statement of protein content as a percentage
`of the Daily Reference Value calculated using the “corrected amount of protein”—an
`amount that is not calculated by simply multiplying the amount of nitrogen by 6.25,
`but by taking into account the “protein quality value,” or “protein digestibility-
`corrected amino acid score.” See 21 C.F.R. § 101.9(c)(7)(ii).
`32. For the products at issue here, the protein content must be stated as a
`percentage of the Daily Value using the corrected amount of protein.
`33. Defendant’s stated protein amount and protein DV% claims are false and
`misleading. The amount of protein determined by nitrogen in Defendant’s products
`are less than what is represented.
`
`5
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00855-MMA-AGS Document 1 Filed 06/10/22 PageID.7 Page 7 of 14
`
`
`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
`
`
`34. Moreover, the DV% of Protein for all of the Products is less than the
`DV% represented on the product labeling.
`35. Defendant knows that its product labeling is false. It is routine practice
`in the food industry to regularly test products to confirm the accuracy of nutrition
`labeling. Defendant therefore would have tested the Products before putting them on
`sale.
`
`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`36. Plaintiff seeks to represent the following classes:
`• National Class: During the fullest period allowed by law, all persons in
`the United States who purchased any of the Products for personal use
`and not for resale within the United States (the “National Class”).
`• Consumer Fraud Ten-State Class: All persons in the States of
`California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
`Missouri, New Jersey, New York, and Washington who purchased the
`Products for personal use and not for resale from the beginning of any
`applicable limitations period through the date of class certification (the
`“Consumer Fraud Multi-State Class”).
`• California Class: all persons in California who purchased any of the
`Products for personal use and not for resale within California
`37. Plaintiff reserves the right to modify the class definitions as appropriate
`based on further investigation and discovery obtained in the case, including through
`the use of multi-state subclasses to account for material variations in state law, if any.
`38. Members of the Class are so numerous that their individual joinder
`herein is impracticable. On information and belief, members of the Class number in
`the thousands. The precise number of Class members and their identities are
`unknown to Plaintiff at this time but may be determined through discovery.
`39. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all Class members and
`predominate over questions affecting only individual Class members. Common legal
`6
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00855-MMA-AGS Document 1 Filed 06/10/22 PageID.8 Page 8 of 14
`
`
`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
`
`
`and factual questions include, but are not limited to, whether Defendant made
`misrepresentations on the labeling, whether Defendant knew the misrepresentations
`were false, and whether Plaintiff and class members are entitled to monetary or
`injunctive relief.
`40. The claims of the named Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the Class
`because the named Plaintiff, like all other class members, purchased the Products.
`41. Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Class because her interests
`do not conflict with the interests of the Class members she seeks to represent, she has
`retained competent counsel experienced in prosecuting class actions, and she intends
`to prosecute this action vigorously. The interests of Class members will be fairly and
`adequately protected by Plaintiff and her counsel.
`42. The class mechanism is superior to other available means for the fair and
`efficient adjudication of the claims of Class members. Each individual Class member
`may lack the resources to undergo the burden and expense of individual prosecution
`of the complex and extensive litigation necessary to establish Defendant’s liability.
`Individualized litigation increases the delay and expense to all parties and multiplies
`the burden on the judicial system presented by the complex legal and factual issues of
`this case. Individualized litigation also presents a potential for inconsistent or
`contradictory judgments. In contrast, the class action device presents far fewer
`management difficulties and provides the benefits of single adjudication, economy of
`scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court on the issue of Defendant’s
`liability. Class treatment of the liability issues will ensure that all claims and
`claimants are before this Court for consistent adjudication of the liability issues.
`43. Plaintiff brings all claims in this action individually and on behalf of
`members of the Class against Defendant.
`//
`//
`//
`
`7
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00855-MMA-AGS Document 1 Filed 06/10/22 PageID.9 Page 9 of 14
`
`
`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
`
`
`COUNT I
`Violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”)
`(Civil Code §§ 1750, et. seq.)
`44. Plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in the paragraphs above as if
`fully set forth herein.
`45. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the members of
`the Classes.
`46. Plaintiff and the Class Members are consumers who purchased the
`Products for personal, family, or household purposes. Accordingly, Plaintiff and the
`California Class Members are “consumers” as that term is defined by the CLRA in
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1761(d).
`47. At all relevant times, the Products constituted “goods” as that term is
`defined in Cal. Civ. Code § 1761(a).
`48. At all relevant times, Defendant was a “person” as that term is defined in
`Civ. Code § 1761(c).
`49. At all relevant times, Plaintiff’s purchase of the Products were
`“transactions” as that term is defined in Cal. Civ. Code § 1761(e). Defendant’s
`actions, representations, and conduct have violated, and continue to violate the
`CLRA, because they extend to transactions that intended to result, or which have
`resulted in, the sale of goods to consumers.
`50. The policies, acts, and practices described in this Complaint were
`intended to and did result in the sale of Products to Plaintiff and the Class.
`Defendant’s practices, acts, policies, and course of conduct violated the CLRA §1750
`et seq. as described above.
`51. Defendant represented that the Products have sponsorship, approval,
`characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities which they do not have in
`violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 1770(a)(5).
`52. Defendant represented that the Products were of a particular standard,
`
`8
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00855-MMA-AGS Document 1 Filed 06/10/22 PageID.10 Page 10 of 14
`
`
`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
`
`
`quality, and grade, when they were of another, in violation of California Civil Code §
`1770(a)(7).
`53. Defendant violated California Civil Code §§ 1770(a)(5) and (a)(7) by
`overstating the amount of protein in the Products.
`54. Defendant advertised and labeled the Products with the intent not to sell
`them as advertised in violation of § 1770(a)(9) of the CLRA.
`55. Defendant knew that the amount of protein stated on the packaging was
`
`false.
`
`56. Plaintiff and class members suffered injuries caused by Defendant’s
`misrepresentations.
`57. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, restitution, and punitive damages.
`
`COUNT II
`Violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Business &
`Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq.
`58. Plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in the paragraphs above as if
`fully set forth herein.
`59. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the members of
`the Classes.
`60. By committing the acts and practices alleged herein, Defendant has
`violated California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§
`17200-17210 by engaging in unlawful and unfair conduct.
`61. Defendant has violated the UCL’s proscription against engaging in
`unlawful conduct as a result of its violations of the CLRA, Cal. Civ. Code §
`1770(a)(5), (a)(7), and (a)(9) as alleged above.
`62. As more fully described above, Defendant’s misleading marketing,
`advertising, packaging and labeling of the Products is likely to deceive reasonable
`consumers.
`63. Defendant’s acts and practices described above also violate the UCL’s
`
`9
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00855-MMA-AGS Document 1 Filed 06/10/22 PageID.11 Page 11 of 14
`
`
`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
`
`
`proscription against engaging in unfair conduct.
`64. Plaintiff and the members of the Class and Subclass have suffered harm
`as a result of the violations of the UCL, and they lack an adequate remedy at law to
`address the conduct at issue here. Legal remedies available to Plaintiff and class
`members are inadequate because they are not as equally prompt and certain and in
`other ways efficient as equitable relief. Damages are not equally certain as restitution
`because the standard that governs restitution is different than the standard that
`governs damages. Hence, the Court may award restitution even if it determines that
`Plaintiff fails to sufficiently adduce evidence to support an award of damages.
`Damages and restitution are not the same amount. Unlike damages, restitution is not
`limited to the amount of money defendant wrongfully acquired plus the legal rate of
`interest. Equitable relief, including restitution, entitles the plaintiff to recover all
`profits from the wrongdoing, even where the original funds taken have grown far
`greater than the legal rate of interest would recognize. Legal claims for damages are
`not equally certain as restitution because claims under the UCL entail few elements.
`In short, significant differences in proof and certainty establish that any potential
`legal claim cannot serve as an adequate remedy at law
`65. There is no benefit to consumers or competition from deceptively
`marketing and labeling the Products.
`66. Plaintiff and the other class members had no way of reasonably knowing
`that the Products they purchased were not as marketed, advertised, packaged, or
`labeled. Thus, they could not have reasonably avoided the injury each of them
`suffered.
`67. The gravity of the consequences of Defendant’s conduct as described
`above outweighs any justification, motive, or reason therefore, particularly
`considering the available legal alternatives which exist in the marketplace, and such
`conduct is immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, offends established public policy, or is
`substantially injurious to Plaintiff and the other members of the Classes.
`10
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00855-MMA-AGS Document 1 Filed 06/10/22 PageID.12 Page 12 of 14
`
`
`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
`
`
`68. Defendant’s violations of the UCL continue to this day.
`69. Plaintiff seeks all available relief under the UCL.
`COUNT III
`Unjust Enrichment
`70. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates all allegations contained in
`the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`71. Plaintiff and the other members of the Classes conferred benefits on
`Defendant by purchasing the Products.
`72. Defendant has been unjustly enriched in retaining the revenues derived
`from the purchase of the Products by Plaintiff and the other members of the Classes.
`73. Retention of those monies under these circumstances is unjust and
`inequitable because Defendant’s labeling of the Products was misleading to
`consumers, which caused injuries to Plaintiff and the other members of the Classes
`because they would have not purchased the Products if Defendant had disclosed that
`the Product labeling overstated the amount of protein.
`74. Putative class members have suffered an injury in fact and have lost
`money as a result of Defendant’s unjust conduct. Putative class members lack an
`adequate remedy at law with respect to this claim and are entitled to non-
`restitutionary disgorgement of the financial profits that Defendant obtained as a result
`of its unjust conduct.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
`situated, seeks judgment against Defendant, as follows:
`(a) For an order certifying the Class under Rule 23 and naming
`Plaintiff as the representative of the Class and Plaintiff’s
`attorneys as Class Counsel to represent the Class;
`(b) For an order declaring that the Defendant’s conduct violates the
`statutes referenced herein;
`
`11
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00855-MMA-AGS Document 1 Filed 06/10/22 PageID.13 Page 13 of 14
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`(c) For an order finding in favor of Plaintiff and the Class on all
`counts asserted herein;
`(d) For compensatory and punitive amounts to be determined by the
`Court and/or jury;
`(e) For prejudgment interest on all amounts awarded;
`(f) For an order of restitution and all other forms of equitable
`monetary relief;
`(g) For injunctive relief as pleaded or as the Court may deem proper;
`and
`(h) For an order awarding Plaintiff and the Class their reasonable
`attorneys’ fees and expenses and costs of suit.
`DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
`Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 38(b), Plaintiff demands a trial by
`jury of all issues so triable.
`
`Dated: June 10, 2022
`
`
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Joel D. Smith
` Joel D. Smith
`
`
`Joel D. Smith (State Bar No. 244902)
`1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
`Walnut Creek, CA 94596
`Telephone: (925) 300-4455
`Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
`E-Mail: jsmith@bursor.com
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`Frederick J. Klorczyk III (State Bar No.
`320783)
`888 Seventh Avenue
`New York, NY 10019
`Telephone: (646) 837-7150
`Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
`
`12
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00855-MMA-AGS Document 1 Filed 06/10/22 PageID.14 Page 14 of 14
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`Email: fklorczyk@bursor.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`13
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`