`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`Latonya Jackson, individually and on behalf of
`all others similarly situated,
`
`1:21-cv-05219
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`- against -
`
`Class Action Complaint
`
`Kraft Heinz Foods Company,
`
`
`
`Defendant
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`Plaintiff alleges upon information and belief, except for allegations pertaining to plaintiff,
`
`which are based on personal knowledge:
`
`1. Kraft Heinz Foods Company (“defendant”) manufactures, labels, markets, and sells
`
`pizza bagels, purporting to contain mozzarella, cheddar and Monterey Jack cheese and tomato
`
`sauce under its Ore Ida brand (“Product”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-05219 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/02/21 Page 2 of 19 PageID #:2
`
`2.
`
`Relevant front label representations include “Three Cheese,” “Mini Bagels with
`
`Mozzarella, Cheddar, Monterey Jack Cheeses and Tomato Sauce,” “Made With Real Cheese,” the
`
`“Real” dairy seal, “No High Fructose Corn Syrup,” and “No Artificial Flavors.”
`
`3.
`
`Consumers are misled by the representations because the front label omits that (1)
`
`starch, nonfat milk, and whey are added to the “real” mozzarella cheese, and (2) tomatoes are
`
`replaced with non-tomato thickeners including cornstarch.
`
`4.
`
`Federal and identical state regulations prohibit false and deceptive practices with
`
`respect to labeling food and beverages. See Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”), 21 U.S.C.
`
`§ 343(a)(1) (a food is misbranded if “its labeling is false or misleading in any particular.”); Illinois
`
`Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (“IFDCA”), 410 ILCS 620/1 et seq.; 410 ILCS 620/21(j) (“[a]
`
`federal [food labeling] regulation automatically adopted…takes effect in this State on the date it
`
`becomes effective as a Federal regulation.”).
`
`5.
`
`The Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act provides
`
`protection for consumers purchasing products like Defendant’s Product, and states:
`
`Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices, including
`but not limited to the use or employment of any deception, fraud, false pretense,
`false promise, misrepresentation or the concealment, suppression or omission of
`any material fact, with intent that others rely upon the concealment, suppression or
`omission of such material fact . . . are hereby declared unlawful
`
`815 ILCS 505/2.
`
`I.
`
`THE FRONT LABEL OMITS THAT THE “MOZZARELLA CHEESE” INCLUDES
`STARCH, NONFAT MILK, AND WHEY
`
`6. While consumers are promised “Three Cheese[s],” the ingredient list shows they
`
`receive a “Topping,” consisting of a “Cheese Blend,” cheddar cheese and Monterey Jack cheese.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-05219 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/02/21 Page 3 of 19 PageID #:3
`
`INGREDIENTS: BAGEL HALVES (ENRICHED
`FLOUR [WHEAT FLOUR, ENZYME, ASCORBIC
`ACID, NIACIN, REDUCED IRON, THIAMINE
`MONONITRATE, RIBOFLAVIN, FOLIC ACID] ,
`WATER, SALT, INVERT CANE SYRUP, YEAST,
`SOYBEAN OIL) TOPPING (CHEESE BLEND
`[(CHEESE [MOZZARELLA CHEESE (CULTURED
`MILK, SALT, ENZYMES), MODIFIED FOOD
`STARCH, NONFAT MILK, WHEY PROTEIN
`CONCENTRATE]),
`CHEDDAR
`CHEESE
`(CULTURED MILK, SALT, ENZYMES, ANNATTO
`COLOR),
`MONTEREY
`JACK
`CHEESE
`(CULTURED MILK, SALT, ENZYMES)]) SAUCE
`(WATER, TOMATO PASTE,
`INVERT CANE
`SYRUP, MODIFIED CORN STARCH, SALT,
`METHYLCELLULOSE,
`CITRIC
`ACID,
`POTASSIUM
`CHLORIDE,
`AMMONIUM
`CHLORIDE, SPICE, YEAST EXTRACT, NATURAL
`FLAVOR, CALCIUM LACTATE), INVERT CANE
`SYRUP, WATER.
`
`
`
`7.
`
`The representations that the Product contains “Real Cheese,” and “Mozzarella
`
`Cheese” are misleading because the front label omits that “Modified Food Starch, Nonfat Milk,
`
`[and] Whey Protein Concentrate” are added to the mozzarella cheese to form a “cheese blend.”
`
`8.
`
`There are four varieties of mozzarella cheese, which differ in fat and moisture
`
`content: (1) mozzarella, (2) low-moisture mozzarella, (3) part-skim Mozzarella, and (4) low-
`
`moisture part-skim mozzarella. 21 C.F.R. § 133.155; 21 C.F.R. § 133.156; 21 C.F.R. § 133.157;
`
`21 C.F.R. § 133.158.
`
`9. Mozzarella cheese is made chiefly from milkfat with a small amount of permitted
`
`optional ingredients. 21 C.F.R. § 133.155(a).
`
`10. The optional ingredients include additional milk or cream, clotting enzymes, vinegar,
`
`coloring, and salt. 21 C.F.R. § 133.155(b)(1)-(3).
`
`11. The reason optional ingredients are restricted is to prevent addition of lower quality
`
`ingredients in place of high-quality dairy ingredients.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-05219 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/02/21 Page 4 of 19 PageID #:4
`
`12. Defendant promises “mozzarella cheese,” with no less than 45 percent milkfat. 21
`
`C.F.R. § 133.155(c).
`
`13. Though the Product contains mozzarella cheese, the front label omits that this is
`
`blended with starch, nonfat milk, and whey.
`
`14. Through adding these ingredients, the most valuable component of milk – milkfat –
`
`is reduced and substituted with cheaper, filler ingredients. 21 U.S.C. § 342(b)(1) (deeming a food
`
`adulterated “If any valuable constituent has been in whole or in part omitted or abstracted
`
`therefrom”).
`
`15. Starch is a lower quality ingredient compared to dairy, and especially to milkfat.
`
`16. Starch also holds up to ten times its own weight in water.
`
`17. By adding one unit (by weight) of starch to a batch of food means that up to ten units
`
`(by weight) of extra water may also be added to the mix, and the resulting product will maintain
`
`its consistency.
`
`18. Therefore, by adding starch, Defendant uses less cheese and milkfat.
`
`19. The typical consumer will not be aware of the functionality played by starch in a
`
`complex food matrix, and know it is used to replace cheese.
`
`20. The addition of nonfat milk lowers the overfall fat content of the “mozzarella cheese”
`
`or “cheese blend.”
`
`21. Whey is the liquid remaining after milk has been curdled and strained, and a
`
`byproduct of the manufacture of cheese or casein.
`
`22. Whey is used to replace milkfat and is lower in quality compared to the whole milk
`
`expected in mozzarella cheese.
`
`23. Reasonable consumers do not expect a cheese blend with starch, whey, and nonfat
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-05219 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/02/21 Page 5 of 19 PageID #:5
`
`milk where the front label promises “Mozzarella Cheese” and “REAL” cheese.
`
`24. Consumers expect mozzarella cheese to mean cheese from milkfat, not a “cheese
`
`blend” containing some mozzarella, added starch, nonfat milk, and whey.
`
`25. Consumers value mozzarella cheese for (1) its soft, moist texture, (2) its milky, yet
`
`tangy taste and (3) its high protein and relatively low calories and sodium compared to other
`
`cheeses.
`
`II.
`
`“REAL” DAIRY SEAL IS MISLEADING
`
`26. Consumers value independent, third-party seals as a shorthand way to establish
`
`whether a product has been vetted by an accredited, independent entity.
`
`27. Obtaining approval from an independent third-party allows companies to obtain a
`
`marketplace advantage, to sell more products at higher prices.
`
`28. Recognizing the value of independent certification, the Federal Trade Commission
`
`(“FTC”) has warned companies against making misleading representations regarding independent
`
`certification. See 16 C.F.R. § 260.1.
`
`29. As stated
`
`in
`
`the FTC guidelines against deceptive marketing regarding
`
`“Certifications and Seals of Approval”:
`
`It is deceptive to misrepresent, directly or by implication,
`that a product, package, or service has been endorsed or
`certified by an independent third party.
`
`16 C.F.R. § 260.6(a) (emphasis added).
`
`30. Defendant’s front label (left) makes prominent use of the “REAL” dairy seal (right),
`
`owned by the National Milk Producers Federation (“NMPF”), which authorizes its use to third
`
`parties.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-05219 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/02/21 Page 6 of 19 PageID #:6
`
`Defendant’s Front Label
`
`“REAL” Dairy Seal
`
`
`
`
`
`31. The REAL Seal was introduced in 1976 by the dairy industry “to combat the use of
`
`imitation cheeses on pizzas.”1
`
`32. According to the website, realseal.com, “When you see the REAL® logo on a
`
`product in a store or on a menu in a restaurant, you can trust it’s the real thing, and not a pale
`
`imitation.”
`
`33. Defendant knows consumers want real mozzarella cheese which is why it
`
`emphasizes “Mozzarella Cheese,” protein content, the “REAL” seal and “MADE WITH REAL
`
`CHEESE.”
`
`34. The website for the REAL Seal details its “Vetting Process:”2
`
`1 NMPF, The Real Seal Story.
`2 NMPF, Who Can Use the Real Seal?
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-05219 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/02/21 Page 7 of 19 PageID #:7
`
`So how do we ensure that products fulfill the strict requirements detailed
`
`above? We require every brand to submit copies of packaging and a detailed
`
`ingredient label for each product they wish to certify. This allows us to properly
`
`vet the products to ensure they meet the REAL® Seal standards.
`
`
`
`35. The traditional “REAL” seal does not contain any qualifying text, and is what
`
`defendant uses on its front label.
`
`36. According to the NMPF, the original “REAL” Seal can be used where a food contains
`
`dairy ingredients that meet federal standards of identity.
`
`37. Where a food or dairy ingredient does not meet a standard of identity, it can use a
`
`modified version of the REAL seal, subject to evaluation by the NMPF.
`
`38. The four modified seals contain the word “REAL” accompanied by the qualifying
`
`statements: “Made With Milk,” “American Made Butter,” “American Made Cheese” and “Made
`
`With Dairy.”
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-05219 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/02/21 Page 8 of 19 PageID #:8
`
`
`
`39. Defendant’s Product does not qualify for the traditional “REAL” seal because the
`
`“cheese blend” contains starch, an extender and filler.3
`
`40. Though NMPF guidelines might have allowed defendant to use one of the four
`
`modified REAL seals, defendant misappropriated the original “REAL” seal and added the
`
`statement, “MADE WITH REAL CHEESE.”
`
`41. The use of the standard “REAL” seal with the statement “MADE WITH REAL
`
`CHEESE” is unauthorized by the NMPF because the Product does not contain “real cheese.”
`
`42. No reasonable consumer expects mozzarella cheese to have starch, nonfat milk, and
`
`
`
`whey.
`
`43. Defendant knew the Product did not meet the “rigorous and exacting certification
`
`process” of the NMPF to use the traditional “REAL” seal.
`
`
`3 NMPF, Who Can Use The REAL® Seal?.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-05219 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/02/21 Page 9 of 19 PageID #:9
`
`44. Though the Product may have been authorized to use a modified “REAL” seal,
`
`Defendant chose to misuse the “REAL” seal, adding its own misleading statement – “MADE
`
`WITH REAL CHEESE.”
`
`45. The use of the “REAL” seal and accompanying statements misleads consumers as to
`
`the quality of the Product.
`
`III. DEFENDANT’S
`“CHEESE BLEND”
`MOZZARELLA CHEESE
`
`IS LESS NUTRITIOUS THAN
`
`46. The addition of starch, nonfat milk, and whey causes the “[mozzarella] cheese blend”
`
`to be nutritionally inferior to mozzarella cheese.
`
`47. Consumers are misled because the front label fails to disclose – as required by law –
`
`that the purported mozzarella cheese blend is an imitation because “it [the cheese blend] is a
`
`substitute for and resembles another food [mozzarella cheese] but is nutritionally inferior to that
`
`food.” 21 C.F.R. § 101.3(e)(1).
`
`48. The addition of starch, nonfat milk, and whey permit a reduction in milkfat content,
`
`resulting in at least two percent less of the daily recommended value (“DRV”) of protein. 21 C.F.R.
`
`§ 101.3(e)(4)(ii) (“Nutritional inferiority”).
`
`49. Consumers are misled because the front label fails to identify the “mozzarella
`
`cheese” as an “imitation” on the front label.
`
`50. The ingredient list fails to disclose that the Product does not contain mozzarella
`
`cheese.
`
`51. First, the ingredient list uses the misleading term – “cheese blend” – to describe a
`
`lower quality, or imitation mozzarella cheese.
`
`52. Second, consumers reading the ingredient list will not know the exact nutritional
`
`values of starch, nonfat milk, and whey, compared to real milk.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-05219 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/02/21 Page 10 of 19 PageID #:10
`
`53. Only after purchasing and consuming the Product will consumers also realize the
`
`Product does not taste like mozzarella cheese, due to the flat “cardboard-like” taste and rubbery
`
`mouthfeel associated with the extender and filler ingredients.
`
`54. Defendant could avoid having to identify the mozzarella cheese as an imitation if the
`
`front label disclosed the addition of the added filler ingredients.
`
`IV. THE REPRESENTATION OF “TOMATO SAUCE” IS MISLEADING
`
`55. Tomato sauce is understood by consumers as a tomato product that is not as thick as
`
`tomato puree but thicker than tomato juice, with flavor enhanced through herbs and spices.4
`
`56. The USDA defines tomato sauce in a way consistent with what consumers expect
`
`from this food, as a combination of tomato ingredients “to which is added salt and spices [.] [,]
`
`[o]ne or more nutritive sweetening ingredients, a vinegar or vinegars, onion, garlic, or other
`
`vegetable flavoring ingredients.”5
`
`57. The thickness of a tomato sauce is a marker of quality, because a thicker sauce has
`
`deeper and richer flavor and texture.
`
`58. The front label representation of “Tomato Sauce” is false, deceptive, and misleading
`
`because it contains non-tomato ingredients designed to give the impression it contains more
`
`tomatoes than it does.
`
`59. The fourth and sixth most predominant ingredients are “Modified Corn Starch” and
`
`“Methylcellulose.”
`
`4 Tomato Sauce.
`5 USDA, Tomato Sauce Grades and Standards.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-05219 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/02/21 Page 11 of 19 PageID #:11
`
`SAUCE (WATER, TOMATO PASTE, INVERT CANE SYRUP,
`
`MODIFIED CORN STARCH, SALT, METHYLCELLULOSE, CITRIC
`
`ACID, POTASSIUM CHLORIDE, AMMONIUM CHLORIDE, SPICE,
`
`YEAST EXTRACT, NATURAL FLAVOR, CALCIUM LACTATE)
`
`60. Cornstarch and methylcellulose are thickening agents, generally considered
`
`adulterants for tomato sauce because the valuable tomato ingredients have been “in part omitted
`
`or abstracted therefrom.” 21 U.S.C. § 342(b)(1).
`
`61. The addition of cornstarch and methylcellulose rechanges the substance, texture, and
`
`nutritional composition of the ingredient identified only as “sauce” on the back label.
`
`62. By using cornstarch and methylcellulose, consumers get thirty-five percent less
`
`tomatoes.
`
`63. Cornstarch and methylcellulose are cheaper than tomatoes because they are produced
`
`industrially in a chemical plant instead of grown on a farm.
`
`64. Consumers value tomato sauce that gets its thickness from tomatoes instead of
`
`cornstarch and methylcellulose, because of their taste, and nutrient density.
`
`65. Tomatoes are rich in lycopene, an antioxidant that contributes to heart health and
`
`reduction in cancer risk.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`
`66. Whether a product contains the amount and/or proportion of cheese and tomato
`
`ingredients expected by consumers is basic information relied on when making decisions at the
`
`store.
`
`67. Reasonable consumers must and do rely on a company to honestly identify and
`
`describe the components, attributes, and features of a product, relative to itself and other
`
`comparable products or alternatives.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-05219 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/02/21 Page 12 of 19 PageID #:12
`
`68. The value of the Product that plaintiff purchased was materially less than its value as
`
`represented by defendant.
`
`69. Defendant sold more of the Product and at higher prices than it would have in the
`
`absence of this misconduct, resulting in additional profits at the expense of consumers.
`
`70. Had Plaintiff and proposed class members known the truth, they would not have
`
`bought the Product or would have paid less for it.
`
`71. The Product is sold for a price premium compared to other similar products, no less
`
`than approximately $10.29 for 40 halves (31.1 oz), a higher price than it would otherwise be sold
`
`for, absent the misleading representations and omissions.
`
`Jurisdiction and Venue
`
`72.
`
`Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”). 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2).
`
`73. The aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, including any statutory
`
`damages, exclusive of interest and costs.
`
`74. Plaintiff Latonya Jackson is a citizen of Illinois.
`
`75. Defendant Kraft Heinz Foods Company is a Pennsylvania limited liability company
`
`with a principal place of business in Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania and upon
`
`information and belief, at least one member of defendant is not a citizen of the same state as the
`
`plaintiff.
`
`76. Plaintiff and defendant are citizens of different states.
`
`77. Venue is in this district because plaintiff resides in this district and the actions giving
`
`rise to the claims occurred within this district.
`
`78. Venue is in the Eastern Division because plaintiff resides in Cook County, which is
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-05219 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/02/21 Page 13 of 19 PageID #:13
`
`where the events giving rise to the present claims occurred.
`
`Parties
`
`79. Plaintiff Latonya Jackson is a citizen of Homewood, Cook County, Illinois.
`
`80. Defendant Kraft Heinz Foods Company, is a Pennsylvania limited liability company
`
`with a principal place of business in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Allegheny County.
`
`81. Defendant’s predecessor, the Kraft Corporation, was started in 1903 through the sale
`
`of cheese door-to-door in Chicago.
`
`82. Within twenty years, Kraft had become the largest cheese manufacturer in the world.
`
`83. Because Kraft was a producer of cheese, it has generally been hostile to the producers
`
`of dairy farmers, who sought a fair price for their milk products.
`
`84. Kraft has continually sought to reduce its reliance on milk and dairy ingredients, to
`
`the detriment of the dairy industry.
`
`85. The Three Cheese Bagel Bites are sold in various sizes, consisting of 9, 18, 24 and
`
`40 bagel halves.
`
`86. Plaintiff bought the Product on one or more occasions within the statute of limitations
`
`for each cause of action alleged, at stores including Target, 7300 W 191st St, Tinley Park, IL
`
`60487, in September 2021, among other times.
`
`87. Plaintiff bought the Product because she expected it contained mozzarella cheese,
`
`without added fillers, and tomato sauce thickened by tomatoes.
`
`88. Plaintiff expected that if the Product contained ingredients which changed the nature
`
`of mozzarella cheese and tomato sauce, this would be disclosed on the front label.
`
`89. Plaintiff knew that Kraft was a brand with an established reputation for quality and
`
`expected it would live up to its word on the Product’s composition.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-05219 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/02/21 Page 14 of 19 PageID #:14
`
`90. Plaintiff bought the Product at or exceeding the above-referenced price.
`
`91. Plaintiff relied on the representations identified here – “Three Cheese,” “Made With
`
`Real Cheese,” “Mozzarella Cheese,” and “Tomato Sauce.”
`
`92. Plaintiff would not have purchased the Product if she knew the representations were
`
`false and misleading by omission.
`
`93. Plaintiff chose between Defendant’s Product and other similar products which were
`
`represented similarly, but which did not misrepresent their attributes and/or lower-priced products
`
`which did not make the statements and claims made by Defendant.
`
`94. The Product was worth less than what Plaintiff paid and she would not have paid as
`
`much absent Defendant's false and misleading statements and omissions.
`
`95. Plaintiff intends to, seeks to, and will purchase the Product again when she can do so
`
`with the assurance that Product's representations are consistent with its composition.
`
`Class Allegations
`
`96. Plaintiff seeks certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) of the following
`
`classes:
`
`Illinois Class: All persons in the State of Illinois who
`purchased the Product during the statutes of limitations for
`each cause of action alleged.
`
`Consumer Fraud Multi-State Class: All persons in the
`States of Iowa and Arkansas who purchased the Product
`during the statutes of limitations for each cause of action
`alleged.6
`
`97. Common questions of law or fact predominate and include whether defendant’s
`
`representations were and are misleading and if plaintiff and class members are entitled to damages.
`
`
`6 The States in the Consumer Fraud Multi-State Class are limited to those States with similar consumer fraud laws
`under the facts of this case: Iowa (Consumer Fraud and Private Right of Action for Consumer Frauds Act, Iowa Code
`Ann. § 714.16 et seq.); Arkansas (Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Ark. Code § 4-88-101, et. seq.).
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-05219 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/02/21 Page 15 of 19 PageID #:15
`
`98. Plaintiff's claims and basis for relief are typical to other members because all were
`
`subjected to the same unfair and deceptive representations and actions.
`
`99. Plaintiff is an adequate representative because her interests do not conflict with other
`
`members.
`
`100. No individual inquiry is necessary since the focus is only on defendant’s practices
`
`and the class is definable and ascertainable.
`
`101. Individual actions would risk inconsistent results, be repetitive and are impractical
`
`to justify, as the claims are modest relative to the scope of the harm.
`
`102. Plaintiff's counsel is competent and experienced in complex class action litigation
`
`and intends to protect class members’ interests adequately and fairly.
`
`103. Plaintiff seeks class-wide injunctive relief because the practices continue.
`
`Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act
`(“ICFA”), 815 ILCS 505/1, et seq.
`
`(Consumer Protection Statute)
`
`104. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
`
`105. Plaintiff and class members desired to purchase a product that contained mozzarella
`
`cheese, without added fillers, and tomato sauce thickened by tomatoes.
`
`106. Defendant’s false and deceptive representations and omissions are material in that
`
`they are likely to influence consumer purchasing decisions.
`
`107. Defendant misrepresented the Product through statements, omissions, ambiguities,
`
`half-truths and/or actions.
`
`108. Plaintiff relied on the representations and omissions.
`
`109. Plaintiff and class members would not have purchased the Product or paid as much
`
`if the true facts had been known, suffering damages.
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-05219 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/02/21 Page 16 of 19 PageID #:16
`
`Violation of State Consumer Fraud Acts
`
`(On Behalf of the Consumer Fraud Multi-State Class)
`
`110. The Consumer Fraud Acts of the States in the Consumer Fraud Multi-State Class
`
`prohibit the use of unfair or deceptive business practices in the conduct of trade or commerce.
`
`111. Defendant intended that plaintiff and each of the other members of the Consumer
`
`Fraud Multi-State Class would rely upon its deceptive conduct, and a reasonable person would in
`
`fact be misled by this deceptive conduct.
`
`112. As a result of defendant’s use or employment of artifice, unfair or deceptive acts or
`
`business practices, plaintiff, and each of the other members of the Consumer Fraud Multi-State
`
`Class, have sustained damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
`
`113. In addition, defendant’s conduct showed malice, motive, and the reckless disregard
`
`of the truth such that an award of punitive damages is appropriate.
`
`Breaches of Express Warranty,
`Implied Warranty of Merchantability and
`Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301, et seq.
`
`114. The Product was manufactured, identified, and sold by defendant and expressly and
`
`impliedly warranted to plaintiff and class members that it contained mozzarella cheese, without
`
`added fillers, and tomato sauce thickened by tomatoes.
`
`115. Defendant had a duty to disclose and/or provide non-deceptive descriptions and
`
`marketing of the Product.
`
`116. This duty is based on Defendant’s outsized role in the market for this type of product
`
`because Kraft and the OreIda brand are among the most trusted food companies in America.
`
`117. Plaintiff provided or will provide notice to defendant, its agents, representatives,
`
`retailers, and their employees.
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-05219 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/02/21 Page 17 of 19 PageID #:17
`
`118. Defendant received notice and should have been aware of these issues due to
`
`complaints by regulators, competitors, and consumers, to its main offices.
`
`119. The Product did not conform to its affirmations of fact and promises due to
`
`defendant’s actions and was not merchantable because it was not fit to pass in the trade as
`
`advertised.
`
`120. Plaintiff and class members would not have purchased the Product or paid as much
`
`if the true facts had been known, suffering damages.
`
`Negligent Misrepresentation
`
`121. Defendant had a duty to truthfully represent the Product, which it breached.
`
`122. This duty is based on defendant’s position, holding itself out as having special
`
`knowledge and experience this area, as custodians and owners of the OreIda brand, known for its
`
`high-quality frozen foods.
`
`123. The representations took advantage of consumers’ cognitive shortcuts made at the
`
`point-of-sale and their trust in defendant, a leader in the field of frozen, “heat-and-eat” foods.
`
`124. Plaintiff and class members reasonably and justifiably relied on these negligent
`
`misrepresentations and omissions, which served to induce and did induce, their purchase of the
`
`Product.
`
`125. Plaintiff and class members would not have purchased the Product or paid as much
`
`if the true facts had been known, suffering damages.
`
`Fraud
`
`126. Defendant misrepresented and/or omitted the attributes and qualities of the Product,
`
`that it contained mozzarella cheese, without added fillers, and tomato sauce thickened by tomatoes.
`
`127. Defendant possesses specialized knowledge regarding the relative amounts of
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-05219 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/02/21 Page 18 of 19 PageID #:18
`
`mozzarella cheese and tomato sauce content of the Product, and that omissions from the front label
`
`of the term “imitation,” or disclosure of added milkfat replacers, and replacement of tomatoes with
`
`cornstarch, would mislead consumers.
`
`128. Moreover, the records Defendant is required to maintain provide it with actual and/or
`
`constructive knowledge of the falsity of the representations.
`
`129. Defendant’s fraudulent intent is evinced by its knowledge that the Product was not
`
`consistent with its representations.
`
`Unjust Enrichment
`
`130. Defendant obtained benefits and monies because the Product was not as represented
`
`and expected, to the detriment and impoverishment of plaintiff and class members, who seek
`
`restitution and disgorgement of inequitably obtained profits.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Jury Demand and Prayer for Relief
`
`Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all issues.
`
` WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment:
`
`1. Declaring this a proper class action, certifying plaintiff as representative and the
`
`undersigned as counsel for the class;
`
`2. Entering preliminary and permanent injunctive relief by directing defendant to correct the
`
`challenged practices to comply with the law;
`
`3. Injunctive relief to remove, correct and/or refrain from the challenged practices and
`
`representations, and restitution and disgorgement for members of the class pursuant to the
`
`applicable laws;
`
`4. Awarding monetary damages, statutory and/or punitive damages pursuant to any statutory
`
`claims and interest pursuant to the common law and other statutory claims;
`
`5. Awarding costs and expenses, including reasonable fees for plaintiff's attorneys and
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-05219 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/02/21 Page 19 of 19 PageID #:19
`
`experts; and
`
`6. Other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
`
`Dated: October 2, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Sheehan & Associates, P.C.
`/s/Spencer Sheehan
`60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 409
`Great Neck NY 11021
`Tel: (516) 268-7080
`spencer@spencersheehan.com
`
`19
`
`