`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`
`BENTON DIVISION
`
`Jaymee Fleming, individually and on behalf of
`all others similarly situated,
`
`3:21-cv-01462
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`- against -
`
`Class Action Complaint
`
`Del Monte Foods, Inc.,
`
`
`
`Defendant
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`Plaintiff alleges upon information and belief, except for allegations pertaining to plaintiff,
`
`which are based on personal knowledge:
`
`1. Del Monte Foods, Inc. (“defendant”) manufactures, labels, markets, and sells
`
`Farmhouse Cut Green Beans described as “Fresh Cut,” “With Natural Sea Salt,” and containing
`
`“No Preservatives” (“Product”).
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Consumers are increasingly seeking foods without preservatives for various reasons.
`
`Preservatives are defined as something that preserves or have the power of
`
`preserving, specifically, an additive used to protect against decay, discoloration, or spoilage.
`
`4.
`
`Preservatives are used to maintain the quality of food beyond their role in killing
`
`microorganisms that can contribute to foodborne illness.
`
`5.
`
`Preservatives are grouped into two general classes – natural preservatives, consisting
`
`of sugar, salt, vinegar, and spices, and artificial preservatives such as benzoate of soda, salicylic
`
`acid, and sulfur dioxide.
`
`6.
`
`In response to an unregulated environment where dangerous substances were being
`
`added to the nation’s food supply, the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 defined “chemical
`
`preservatives” as any chemical that, when added to food, tends to prevent or retard deterioration
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-01462-SMY Document 1 Filed 11/19/21 Page 2 of 10 Page ID #2
`
`thereof, but does not include common salt, sugars, vinegars, spices, or oils extracted from spices.
`
`7. When the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act was enacted, it contained the same
`
`requirement. 21 C.F.R. § 101.22(a)(5).
`
`8.
`
`Federal and identical state regulations require that all foods contain a prominent
`
`statement sufficient to tell purchasers if it contains a chemical preservative. 21 C.F.R. § 101.22(c).
`
`9.
`
`Canned green beans are required to be processed by heat, in an appropriate manner
`
`before or after being sealed in a container, as to prevent spoilage. 21 C.F.R. § 155.120(a).
`
`10. Salt is an optional ingredient to canned green beans.
`
`11. Salt can be added for taste, but also functions as a preservative.
`
`12. Though canning kills biological organisms, it is not a silver bullet.
`
`13. Some organisms are merely weakened through the canning process, while some may
`
`survive, albeit in small enough numbers such that they will not be an issue if the food is consumed
`
`within a reasonable amount of time.
`
`14. Salt ensures that fewer bacteria survive, and those that do, stay dormant.
`
`15. Salt prevents the deterioration of the green beans over time beyond its impact on any
`
`chemical processes
`
`16. Chemical processes exist which are unrelated to foodborne illness which can cause
`
`a food’s quality to decrease over time.
`
`17. Salt prevents and slows discoloration of food.
`
`18. Salt causes food to maintain its texture for longer than it otherwise would.
`
`19.
`
`In canned foods, salt adds flavor, but maintains the natural flavor of the food.
`
`20. Salt has a preservative function even in a largely sterile environment.
`
`21. The statement that the Product has “No Preservatives” is false, due to the presence
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-01462-SMY Document 1 Filed 11/19/21 Page 3 of 10 Page ID #3
`
`of salt.
`
`22. While the relevant regulations for chemical preservatives do not require any
`
`ingredient in the Product to be identified as a preservative nor the front label to disclose any
`
`chemical preservative (it does not have any), they do not authorize the claim of “No Preservatives.”
`
`23. The Product contains other representations which are misleading.
`
`24. 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.
`
`25. By labeling the Product in this manner, Defendant gained an advantage against other
`
`companies, and against consumers seeking to purchase a product that did not contain preservative
`
`ingredients.
`
`26. The value of the Product that plaintiff purchased was materially less than its value as
`
`represented by defendant.
`
`27. 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.
`
`28. Had Plaintiff and proposed class members known the truth, they would not have
`
`bought the Product or would have paid less for it.
`
`29. The Product is sold for a price premium compared to other similar products, no less
`
`than approximately $2.79 for 14.5 oz (411g), a higher price than it would otherwise be sold for,
`
`absent the misleading representations and omissions.
`
`Jurisdiction and Venue
`
`30.
`
`Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”). 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2).
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-01462-SMY Document 1 Filed 11/19/21 Page 4 of 10 Page ID #4
`
`31. The aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, including any statutory
`
`damages, exclusive of interest and costs.
`
`32. Plaintiff Jaymee Fleming is a citizen of Illinois.
`
`33. Defendant Del Monte Foods, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with a principal place
`
`of business in Walnut Creek, Contra Costa County, California.
`
`34. Plaintiff and defendant are citizens of different states.
`
`35. Defendant transacts business within this District through sale of the Product within
`
`this District, at convenience stores, grocery stores, drug stores, big box stores, membership stores,
`
`and online, sold directly to residents of this District.
`
`36. Venue is in this District because plaintiff resides in this district and the actions giving
`
`rise to the claims occurred within this district.
`
`37. Venue is in the Benton Division Courthouse in this District because a substantial part
`
`of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in Perry County, i.e., Plaintiff’s
`
`purchase of the Product and her awareness of the issues described here.
`
`Parties
`
`38. Plaintiff Jaymee Fleming is a citizen of Pinckneyville, Perry County, Illinois.
`
`39. Plaintiff tries to avoid food with any kinds of added preservatives.
`
`40. Defendant Del Monte Foods, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with a principal place
`
`of business in Walnut Creek, California, Contra Costa County.
`
`41. Del Monte is the country's largest producers of vegetables.
`
`42. As one of the oldest sellers of canned goods, consumers know the Del Monte Shield
`
`means trust and quality.
`
`43. Plaintiff purchased the Product on one or more occasions within the statutes of
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-01462-SMY Document 1 Filed 11/19/21 Page 5 of 10 Page ID #5
`
`limitations for each cause of action alleged, from stores including Walmart, 215 Grant Way Du
`
`Quoin, IL 62832, between October and November 2021, among other times.
`
`44. Plaintiff bought the Product because she expected it did not contain preservative
`
`ingredients because that is what the representations said and implied.
`
`45. Plaintiff seeks to avoid preservatives of all kinds.
`
`46. Plaintiff relied on the words and images on the Product, identified here.
`
`47. Plaintiff bought the Product at or exceeding the above-referenced price.
`
`48. Plaintiff would not have purchased the Product if she knew the representations were
`
`false and misleading or would have paid less for them.
`
`49. Plaintiff chose between Defendant’s Product and similar products 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.
`
`50. 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.
`
`51. 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 their composition.
`
`52. Plaintiff is unable to rely on the labeling of not only this Product, but other items
`
`purporting to not contain preservatives, because she is unsure of whether their representations are
`
`truthful.
`
`53. Plaintiff wants to purchase foods, including green beans, without preservatives
`
`because she likes this food and she dislikes preservatives.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-01462-SMY Document 1 Filed 11/19/21 Page 6 of 10 Page ID #6
`
`Class Allegations
`
`54. 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 North Dakota, Rhode Island, Michigan, Virginia,
`Kansas, Wyoming, and Delaware, who purchased the
`Product during the statutes of limitations for each cause of
`action alleged
`
`55. 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.
`
`56. 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.
`
`57. Plaintiff is an adequate representative because her interests do not conflict with other
`
`members.
`
`58. No individual inquiry is necessary since the focus is only on defendant’s practices
`
`and the class is definable and ascertainable.
`
`59.
`
`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.
`
`60. Plaintiff's counsel is competent and experienced in complex class action litigation
`
`and intends to protect class members’ interests adequately and fairly.
`
`61. Plaintiff seeks class-wide injunctive relief because the practices continue.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-01462-SMY Document 1 Filed 11/19/21 Page 7 of 10 Page ID #7
`
`Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act
`(“ICFA”), 815 ILCS 505/1, et seq.
`
`(Consumer Protection Statute)
`
`62. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
`
`63. Plaintiff and class members desired to purchase a product that did not contain
`
`preservative ingredients.
`
`64. Defendant’s false and deceptive representations and omissions are material in that
`
`they are likely to influence consumer purchasing decisions.
`
`65. Defendant misrepresented the Product through statements, omissions, ambiguities,
`
`half-truths and/or actions.
`
`66. Plaintiff and class members would not have purchased the Product or paid as much
`
`if the true facts had been known, suffering damages.
`
`67. Defendant misrepresented the Product through statements, omissions, ambiguities,
`
`half-truths and/or actions.
`
`68. Plaintiff relied on the representations that the Product did not contain preservative
`
`ingredients
`
`69.
`
` Plaintiff and class members would not have purchased the Product or paid as much
`
`if the true facts had been known, suffering damages.
`
`Violation of State Consumer Fraud Acts
`
`(On Behalf of the Consumer Fraud Multi-State Class)
`
`70. 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.
`
`71. Defendant intended that plaintiff and each of the other members of the Consumer
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-01462-SMY Document 1 Filed 11/19/21 Page 8 of 10 Page ID #8
`
`Fraud Multi-State Class would rely upon its deceptive conduct, and a reasonable person would in
`
`fact be misled by this deceptive conduct.
`
`72. 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.
`
`73.
`
`In addition, defendant’s conduct showed 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.
`
`74. The Product was manufactured, identified, and sold by defendant and expressly and
`
`impliedly warranted to plaintiff and class members that it did not contain preservative ingredients.
`
`75. Defendant had a duty to disclose and/or provide non-deceptive descriptions and
`
`marketing of the Product.
`
`76. This duty is based on Defendant’s outsized role in the market for this type of Product,
`
`the preeminent brand when it comes to packaged vegetables, symbolized by the iconic Del Monte
`
`Shield, representing the highest quality.
`
`77. Thus, the Product has a high level of trust with consumers, more so than other brands.
`
`78. Plaintiff provided or will provide notice to defendant, its agents, representatives,
`
`retailers, and their employees.
`
`79. Defendant received notice and should have been aware of these issues due to
`
`complaints by regulators, competitors, and consumers, to its main offices, and by consumers
`
`through online forums.
`
`80. The Product did not conform to its affirmations of fact and promises due to
`
`defendant’s actions and were not merchantable because it was not fit to pass in the trade as
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-01462-SMY Document 1 Filed 11/19/21 Page 9 of 10 Page ID #9
`
`advertised.
`
`81. 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
`
`82. Defendant had a duty to truthfully represent the Product, which it breached.
`
`83. This duty is based on defendant’s position, holding itself out as having special
`
`knowledge and experience in this area, as the leading canner of vegetables in the nation.
`
`84. The representations took advantage of consumers’ cognitive shortcuts made at the
`
`point-of-sale and their trust in defendant, the preeminent canned vegetables brand.
`
`85. 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.
`
`86. Plaintiff and class members would not have purchased the Product or paid as much
`
`if the true facts had been known, suffering damages.
`
`Fraud
`
`87. Defendant misrepresented and/or omitted the attributes and qualities of the Product,
`
`that it did not contain preservative ingredients.
`
`88. Moreover, the records Defendant is required to maintain, and/or the information
`
`inconspicuously disclosed to consumers, provide it with actual and/or constructive knowledge of
`
`the falsity of the representations.
`
`89. Defendant’s fraudulent intent is evinced by its knowledge that the Product was not
`
`consistent with its representations.
`
`Unjust Enrichment
`
`90. Defendant obtained benefits and monies because the Product was not as represented
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-01462-SMY Document 1 Filed 11/19/21 Page 10 of 10 Page ID #10
`
`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
`
`experts; and
`
`6. Other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
`
`Dated: November 19, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`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
`
`
`