`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
`
`
`TAMMY JOHNSON, individually and on
`behalf of others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
` Case No.: 3:21-cv-00009
`
`
` CLASS ACTION
`
`
`
`
` COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
`
`
`MIDWESTERN PET FOODS, INC., an
`Indiana Corporation.
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Tammy Johnson (“Plaintiff” or “Plaintiff Johnson”) hereby files
`
`this Complaint on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, by and through
`
`the undersigned attorneys, against Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc., (hereinafter,
`
`“Midwestern” or “Defendant”) and alleges as follows based upon personal
`
`knowledge as to herself and her own acts and experiences; and, as to all other
`
`matters, upon information and belief based upon, inter alia, investigations
`
`conducted by her attorneys.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`This is a class action lawsuit brought by Plaintiff on behalf of herself
`
`and a class of purchasers of dog and cat food manufactured by Midwestern Pet
`
`Foods, Inc. (hereinafter, “Midwestern Pet Food” or “Products”), marketed and
`
`distributed by the Defendant, which contain Aflatoxin, a toxin produced by the
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00009-RLY-MPB Document 1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 2 of 35 PageID #: 2
`
`
`
`mold variety Aspergillus flavus.
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`The Midwestern Pet Food includes Products branded as Pro Pac,
`
`Splash Fat Cat, Nunn Better, Sportstrail 50, and Sportmix.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant touts that it has been “making high-quality pet food &
`
`treats” for generations.1
`
`4.
`
`Despite Defendant’s claim that its Products are high quality, when
`
`pets ingest the Pet Food that is contaminated with Aflatoxin, it can result in serious
`
`medical peril, including vomiting, loss of appetite, jaundice, diarrhea, colitis, liver
`
`damage, and death.2
`
`5.
`
`According to the FDA, “As of January 11, 2021, FDA is aware of
`
`more than 70 pets that have died and more than 80 pets that are sick after eating
`
`Sportmix pet food.”3
`
`6.
`
`Based on Midwestern’s own pre-sale representations about health
`
`testing and quality control measures, infra, it knew or should have known about the
`
`
`1 https://midwesternpetfoods.com/.
`2 FDA ALERT: CERTAIN LOTS OF SPORTMIX PET FOOD RECALLED FOR POTENTIALLY FATAL
`LEVELS OF AFLATOXIN, https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/outbreaks-and-advisories/fda-
`alert-certain-lots-sportmix-pet-food-recalled-potentially-fatal-levels-aflatoxin (last visited Jan.
`14, 2021).
`3 FDA ALERT: CERTAIN LOTS OF SPORTMIX PET FOOD RECALLED FOR POTENTIALLY FATAL
`LEVELS OF AFLATOXIN, https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/outbreaks-and-advisories/fda-
`alert-certain-lots-sportmix-pet-food-recalled-potentially-fatal-levels-aflatoxin
` (last visited Jan. 14, 2021). Not all of these cases have been officially confirmed as aflatoxin
`poisoning through laboratory testing or veterinary record review. This count is approximate and
`may not reflect the total number of pets affected.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00009-RLY-MPB Document 1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 3 of 35 PageID #: 3
`
`
`
`Aflatoxin contamination in the Midwestern Pet Food.
`
`
`
`
`
`7.
`
` Upon information and belief, Defendant failed to disclose and/or
`
`actively concealed the known Aflatoxin contamination in the Midwestern Pet Food
`
`and its health risk to consumers’ pets.
`
`8.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s business practices, Plaintiff’s and Class
`
`members’ purchases of Midwestern Pet Food have caused them to suffer an
`
`ascertainable loss of money and/or property.
`
`9.
`
`Had Plaintiff and other Class members known about the Aflatoxin
`
`contamination of Midwestern Pet Food at the time of purchase, they would not
`
`have purchased the Midwestern Pet Food, or would have paid substantially less for
`
`it, and would have avoided the significant out-of-pocket expenses of providing
`
`veterinary care to their pets as a result of their purchase of Midwestern Pet Food.
`
`10. As a result of the Midwestern Pet Food contamination and the
`
`considerable monetary costs associated with attempting to treat related symptoms
`
`in their pets, Plaintiff and Class members have suffered injury in fact, incurred
`
`damages and have otherwise been harmed by Defendant’s conduct.
`
`11. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action to redress Defendant’s
`
`violations of various state and federal consumer protection statutes, and to recover
`
`for Defendant’s breach of express and implied warranties, common law fraud and
`
`unjust enrichment.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00009-RLY-MPB Document 1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 4 of 35 PageID #: 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`12. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to
`
`28 U.S.C. §1332 of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 because: (i) there are
`
`100 or more class members, (ii) there is an aggregate amount in controversy
`
`exceeding $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and (iii) there is minimal
`
`diversity because Plaintiff and Defendant are citizens of different states. This Court
`
`has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1367.
`
`13. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391
`
`because Defendant transacts business in this District, maintains its corporate
`
`headquarters in this District, is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District, and
`
`therefore is deemed to be a citizen of this District. Additionally, Defendant has
`
`advertised in this District and has received substantial revenue and profits from its
`
`sales of Midwestern Pet Food in this District; therefore, a substantial part of the
`
`events and/or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred, in part, within this
`
`District.
`
`14. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because:
`
`Defendant’s corporate headquarters is located in this District; Defendant is
`
`registered with the Indiana Secretary of State as a for-profit corporation permitted
`
`to operate in Indiana; Defendant conducts substantial business in the District; a
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00009-RLY-MPB Document 1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 5 of 35 PageID #: 5
`
`
`
`substantial part of the acts and omissions complained of occurred in this District;
`
`
`
`
`
`and Defendant has intentionally and purposefully placed Midwestern Pet Food into
`
`the stream of commerce within Indiana and throughout the United States.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`Plaintiff Tammy Johnson
`
`15. Plaintiff Tammy Johnson (“Plaintiff” or “Johnson”) is a citizen of the
`
`State of Georgia, and currently resides in Eastman, Georgia.
`
`16. Plaintiff owns seven dogs, of which six are adult dogs, and one is a
`
`six-month old puppy.
`
`17. For approximately two years, Johnson has purchased two types of
`
`Midwestern Pet Foods for her animals – SPORTMiX for her adult dogs, and
`
`SPORTMiX Puppy Small for her puppy. She has generally purchased the Products
`
`from Tractor Supply in Eastman, Georgia.
`
`18. Prior to purchasing Midwestern Pet Food products, Plaintiff reviewed
`
`and relied upon information furnished by Defendant, which did not disclose or
`
`mention the health risks resulting from the Aflatoxin contamination of the
`
`Products. Plaintiff viewed this information on the Midwestern Pet Food packaging
`
`as well as on Defendant’s website.
`
`19. During the week of January 3, 2021, Plaintiff noticed health problems
`
`arising in several of her dogs, including vomiting and diarrhea. The dogs who had
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00009-RLY-MPB Document 1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 6 of 35 PageID #: 6
`
`
`
`gotten sick recovered on their own after several days of illness.
`
`
`
`
`
`20. On January 13, 2021, Plaintiff’s puppy remained ill, so she contacted
`
`her veterinarian’s office, Ocmulgee Veterinary Clinic in Eastman, Georgia, and
`
`was advised that he needed treatment for colitis. Based on this advice, Plaintiff
`
`purchased Metronidazole 250mg tablets from her veterinarian to treat her puppy’s
`
`colitis.
`
`21.
`
` Plaintiff has been advised by her veterinarian that the puppy will also
`
`have to undergo future testing for liver damage as a result of the colitis.
`
`22. After receiving this diagnosis, Plaintiff returned the product to Tractor
`
`Supply, where she had purchased it, and bought a more expensive brand, Purina
`
`dog food, and paid the difference out-of-pocket.
`
`23. Neither the Defendant, nor any of its agents, dealers or other
`
`representatives, informed Plaintiff of the existence of the Aflatoxin contamination
`
`of the Products prior to purchase. Had Defendant disclosed the contamination to
`
`Plaintiff, Plaintiff would not have purchased Midwestern Pet Food, and would
`
`have avoided the veterinary and other costs resulting from its use.
`
`24. Plaintiff has suffered an ascertainable loss as a result of Defendant’s
`
`omissions and/or misrepresentations associated with the Aflatoxin contamination
`
`of the Products, including, but not limited to, the out-of-pocket expenses and loss
`
`associated with the medical and veterinary expenses resulting from the Products,
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00009-RLY-MPB Document 1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 7 of 35 PageID #: 7
`
`
`
`and the cost of replacement dog food.
`
`
`
`Defendant Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc.
`
`
`
`25. Defendant Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc., is a domestic for-profit
`
`corporation registered to do business in Indiana with its principal place of business
`
`located at 9634 Hedden Road, Evansville, Indiana, 47725, USA.4
`
`26. Defendant designs, manufactures, distributes, sells and warrants pet
`
`foods, including Products branded as Pro Pac; Splash Fat Cat; Nunn Better;
`
`Sportstrail 50; and SPORTMiX.
`
`27. Upon information and belief, Defendant develops the Products’
`
`directions, marketing materials, ingredient composition, safety guides, and other
`
`accompanying product information for Midwestern Pet Food.
`
`28. Defendant engages in continuous and substantial business throughout
`
`the United States, including in Indiana.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`A.
`
`The Aflatoxin Contamination in Midwestern Pet Food
`
`29. Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc. has been in business since 1926.5 It sells
`
`numerous lines of pet food including SPORTMiX and other brands.
`
`
`4 Public Business Search, INDIANA SECRETARY OF STATE,
`https://bsd.sos.in.gov/PublicBusinessSearch/BusinessFilings (search term: “Midwestern Pet
`Foods”) (last visited Jan. 14, 2020).
`5 MIDWESTERN PET FOODS – ABOUT US, https://midwesternpetfoods.com/#about-us (last visited
`Jan. 14, 2021).
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00009-RLY-MPB Document 1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 8 of 35 PageID #: 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`30. Defendant touts that it creates its “own nutritious dry recipes and
`
`treats and prepare[s its] foods in . . . 4 family-owned kitchens.”6
`
`31.
`
`In December 2020, the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”)
`
`reported that certain Midwestern Pet Food products produced in Defendant’s
`
`Oklahoma production facility were contaminated with Aflatoxin.7
`
`32. Aflatoxin is a mold-borne toxin which can contaminate grains, nuts,
`
`and corn when they are inappropriately stored in conditions which facilitate fungal
`
`growth.8 Aflatoxin is a formidable toxin and carcinogen which poses severe health
`
`risks to humans and animals.9
`
`33. On December 30, 2020, Defendant issued a recall for many products
`
`in the Sportmix line, including certain lots of:
`
`a. Sportmix Energy Plus (50 lb. and 44 lb. bags)
`
`b. Sportmix Premium High Energy (50 lb. and 44 lb. bags)
`
`c. Sportmix Original Cat (31 lb. and 15 lb. bags)10
`
`
`6 https://midwesternpetfoods.com/.
`7 FDA ALERT: CERTAIN LOTS OF SPORTMIXPET FOOD RECALLED FOR POTENTIALLY FATAL
`LEVELS OF AFLATOXIN, https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/outbreaks-and-advisories/fda-
`alert-certain-lots-sportmix-pet-food-recalled-potentially-fatal-levels-aflatoxin (last visited Jan.
`14, 2021).
`8 C.D. WILLIAMS & H. JAESHKE, FUNGAL HEPATOXINS (2011).
`9 C.D. WILLIAMS & H. JAESHKE, FUNGAL HEPATOXINS (2011).
`10 “Company Announcement: Midwestern Pet Foods Voluntarily Recalls Pet Food Recall for
`Aflatoxin Health Risk” (Dec. 30, 2020), attached as Exhibit A; see also, FDA ALERT: CERTAIN
`LOTS OF SPORTMIX PET FOOD RECALLED FOR POTENTIALLY FATAL LEVELS OF AFLATOXIN,
`https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/outbreaks-and-advisories/fda-alert-certain-lots-sportmix-
`pet-food-recalled-potentially-fatal-levels-aflatoxin (last visited Jan. 14, 2021).
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00009-RLY-MPB Document 1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 9 of 35 PageID #: 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`34. On January 11, 2021, Defendant expanded this recall to include
`
`certain lots of:
`
`a. Pro Pac Adult Mini Chunk
`
`b. Pro Pac Performance Puppy
`
`c. Splash Fat Cat 32%
`
`d. Nunn Better Maintenance
`
`e. Sportstrail 50
`
`f. Sportmix Maintenance
`
`g. Sportmix High Protein
`
`h. Sportmix Stamina
`
`i. Sportmix Bite Size
`
`j. Sportmix High Energy
`
`k. Sportmix Premium Puppy11
`
`35. As a result of the Aflatoxin contamination of Midwestern Pet Foods,
`
`the Products are unreasonably dangerous and unsuited for the ordinary and
`
`intended purpose of providing nutrition to pets.
`
`
`
`
`11 “Company Announcement: Midwestern Pet Foods Voluntarily Expands Recall of Pet Food for
`Aflatoxin Health Risk” (Jan. 11, 2021), attached as Exhibit B; see also, FDA ALERT: CERTAIN
`LOTS OF SPORTMIX PET FOOD RECALLED FOR POTENTIALLY FATAL LEVELS OF AFLATOXIN,
`https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/outbreaks-and-advisories/fda-alert-certain-lots-sportmix-
`pet-food-recalled-potentially-fatal-levels-aflatoxin (last visited Jan. 14, 2021).
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00009-RLY-MPB Document 1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 10 of 35 PageID #: 10
`
`
`
`B. Defendant’s Knowledge of the Contaminated Products
`
`
`
`
`
`36. At all times relevant to this Complaint, including prior to recalling the
`
`Product and selling it to Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant was or should
`
`have been aware of the problems with the Midwestern Pet Food.
`
`37. As a seasoned manufacturer with almost a century of experience in
`
`making pet foods, Defendant analyzes the nutritional content of its products, and
`
`conducts testing, including health and nutrition testing, on all of its products.
`
`38. Defendant touts the nutrition and safeguards of its Products in
`
`statements such as:
`
`a. “Midwestern Pet Foods has quality control personnel and laboratories
`
`at each plant to test incoming ingredients and finished products. This
`
`ranges from managing guarantees, to testing things like degree of
`
`cook and microbial confirmation for release. All of our plants are
`
`FSMA-ready and follow the GMP regulations as put out through
`
`FSMA and the FDA. Additionally, all of our safety technicians follow
`
`all OSHA and state regulations.”
`
`b. “All SPORTMIX foods are designed to provide complete and
`
`balanced nutrition and meet Association of American Feed Control
`
`Officials (AAFCO) requirements.”
`
`c. “When introducing a new product, Association of American Feed
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00009-RLY-MPB Document 1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 11 of 35 PageID #: 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Control Officials (AAFCO) feeding trials are completed at a farm
`
`with an in-home atmosphere that is non-invasive, non-lethal and cage-
`
`free.”12
`
`39. Through these quality control measures, Defendant knew or should
`
`have known that the Midwestern Pet Food at issue was unsafe for pet consumption.
`
`40. Plaintiff and Class members were without access to the information
`
`concealed by Defendant as described herein, and therefore reasonably relied on
`
`Defendant’s representations and warranties regarding the quality, nutrition, and
`
`safety of Midwestern Pet Food. Had Plaintiff and Class members known of the
`
`contamination and the potential harm posed by Midwestern Pet Food, they would
`
`have taken steps to avoid that harm and/or not have purchased the Products at all.
`
`41. Despite Defendant’s knowledge of the Aflatoxin contamination of
`
`Midwestern Pet Food, it failed to either notify Plaintiff and Class members of the
`
`nature and extent of the problems with the Product or to provide an adequate
`
`remedy.
`
`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`
`42. Plaintiff brings this action on her own behalf, and on behalf of the
`
`following Class pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a), 23(b)(2), and/or 23(b)(3).
`
`Specifically, the Class consists of the following:
`
`
`12 SPORTMIX – FAQ, https://www.sportmix.com/faq/ (last visited Jan. 14, 2021)
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00009-RLY-MPB Document 1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 12 of 35 PageID #: 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Nationwide Class:
`
`All persons or entities in the United States who purchased Midwestern Pet
`Foods that were subject to Defendant’s December 30, 2020 and/or January
`11, 2021 recalls.
`
`
`and/or, in the alternative,
`
`
`Georgia Class:
`
`All persons or entities in Georgia who purchased Midwestern Pet Foods that
`were subject to Defendant’s December 30, 2020 and/or January 11, 2021
`recalls.
`
`and/or, in the alternative,
`
`Indiana Class:
`
`All persons or entities in Indiana who purchased Midwestern Pet Foods that
`were subject to Defendant’s December 30, 2020 and/or January 11, 2021
`recalls.
`
`
`
`43. Together, the Nationwide Class, the Georgia Class, and the Indiana
`
`Class will be referred to collectively as the “Class.” Excluded from the Class are
`
`Defendant, its affiliates, employees, officers and directors, persons or entities that
`
`purchased Midwestern Pet Food for resale, and the Judge(s) assigned to this case.
`
`Plaintiff reserves the right to modify, change or expand the Class definition.
`
`44. Numerosity: Upon information and belief, the Class is so numerous
`
`that joinder of all members is impracticable. While the exact number and identities
`
`of individual members of the Class are unknown at this time, such information
`
`being in the sole possession of Defendant and obtainable by Plaintiff only through
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00009-RLY-MPB Document 1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 13 of 35 PageID #: 13
`
`
`
`the discovery process, Plaintiff believes that hundreds or thousands of
`
`
`
`
`
`contaminated Products have been sold in each of the states that are the subject of
`
`the Class.
`
`45. Existence and Predominance of Common Questions of Fact and Law:
`
`Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class. These
`
`questions predominate over the questions affecting individual Class members.
`
`These common legal and factual questions include, but are not limited to:
`
`a. whether the Midwestern Pet Food purchased by Plaintiff and Class is
`
`or was affected by Aflatoxin contamination;
`
`b. whether Defendant knowingly failed to disclose the existence and
`
`cause of the Aflatoxin contamination on Midwestern Pet Food and its
`
`adverse medical effects on pets;
`
`c. whether Defendant’s conduct violates the Georgia Fair Business
`
`Practices Act, Ga. Code Ann. §§ 10-1-390, et seq;
`
`d. whether Defendant’s conduct violates the Georgia Uniform Deceptive
`
`Trade Practices Act, Ga. Code Ann. §§ 10-1-370, et seq.;
`
`e. whether Defendant’s conduct violates the Indiana Deceptive
`
`Consumer Sales Act, Ind. Code §§ 24-5-0.5-1, et seq.;
`
`f. whether Defendant is strictly liable for the state statutory violations;
`
`g. whether Defendant’s conduct constitutes negligence;
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00009-RLY-MPB Document 1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 14 of 35 PageID #: 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`h. whether Defendant’s conduct constitutes a breach of express
`
`warranty;
`
`i. whether Defendant’s conduct constitutes a breach of implied
`
`warranty;
`
`j. whether Defendant’s conduct constitutes common law fraud;
`
`k. whether Defendant’s conduct constitutes unjust enrichment; and
`
`l. whether Plaintiff and Class members are entitled to monetary
`
`damages and/or other remedies and, if so, the nature of any such
`
`relief.
`
`46. Typicality: All of Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the
`
`Class since Plaintiff purchased contaminated Midwestern Pet Food, as did each
`
`member of the Class. Furthermore, Plaintiff and all members of the Class sustained
`
`monetary and economic injuries including, but not limited to, ascertainable loss
`
`arising out of Defendant’s wrongful conduct. Plaintiff is advancing the same
`
`claims and legal theories on behalf of herself and all absent Class members.
`
`47. Adequacy: Plaintiff is an adequate representative because her interests
`
`do not conflict with the interests of the Class that she seeks to represent, she has
`
`retained counsel competent and highly experienced in complex class action
`
`litigation, and she intends to prosecute this action vigorously. The interests of the
`
`Class will be fairly and adequately protected by Plaintiff and her counsel.
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00009-RLY-MPB Document 1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 15 of 35 PageID #: 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`48. Superiority: A class action is superior to all other available means of
`
`fair and efficient adjudication of the claims of Plaintiff and members of the Class.
`
`The injury suffered by each individual Class member is relatively small in
`
`comparison to the burden and expense of individual prosecution of the complex
`
`and extensive litigation necessitated by Defendant’s conduct. It would be virtually
`
`impossible for members of the Class to individually and effectively redress the
`
`wrongs done to them. Even if the members of the Class could afford such
`
`individual litigation, the court system could not. Individualized litigation presents a
`
`potential for inconsistent or contradictory judgments. Individualized litigation also
`
`increases the delay and expense to all parties, and to the court system, presented by
`
`the complex legal and factual issues of the case. By 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. Upon information and belief, members of the Class can be readily identified
`
`and notified based on, inter alia, Defendant’s sale information and records, and
`
`FDA complaints and communications.
`
`49.
`
` Defendant has acted, and refused to act, on grounds generally
`
`applicable to the Class, thereby making appropriate final equitable relief with
`
`respect to the Class as a whole.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00009-RLY-MPB Document 1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 16 of 35 PageID #: 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VIOLATIONS ALLEGED
`
`COUNT I
`VIOLATIONS OF GEORGIA FAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT
`(Ga. Code Ann. §§ 10-1-390, et seq.)
`(Brought on Behalf of the Georgia Class)
`
`50. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all allegations of the preceding
`
`paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
`
`51. Defendant is a “person” as defined by the Georgia Fair Business
`
`Practices Act (“Georgia FBPA”). Ga. Code Ann. § 10-1-392(a)(24).
`
`52. Plaintiff and Class Members are “consumers” within the meaning of
`
`the Georgia FBPA. Ga. Code Ann. § 10-1-392(a)(6).
`
`53. The purchase of Midwestern Pet Food by Plaintiff and Class Members
`
`constituted “consumer transactions” as defined by the Georgia FBPA. Ga. Code
`
`Ann. § 10-1-392(a)(10).
`
`54. The Georgia FBPA declares “[u]nfair or deceptive acts or practices in
`
`the conduct of consumer transactions and consumer acts or practices in trade or
`
`commerce” to be unlawful, Ga. Code Ann. § 10-1-393(a), including but not limited
`
`to “representing that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics,
`
`ingredients, uses, or benefits that they do not have,” “[r]epresenting that goods or
`
`services are of a particular standard, quality, or grade … if they are of another,”
`
`and “[a]dvertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised,” id.
`
`§§ 10-1-393(b)(5), (7) & (9).
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00009-RLY-MPB Document 1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 17 of 35 PageID #: 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`55. Defendant represents on its website that it thoroughly tests its
`
`products to ensure consumer satisfaction including in statements such as:
`
`a. “Midwestern Pet Foods has quality control personnel and laboratories
`
`at each plant to test incoming ingredients and finished products. This
`
`ranges from managing guarantees, to testing things like degree of
`
`cook and microbial confirmation for release. All of our plants are
`
`FSMA-ready and follow the GMP regulations as put out through
`
`FSMA and the FDA. Additionally, all of our safety technicians follow
`
`all OSHA and state regulations.”
`
`b. “All SPORTMIX foods are designed to provide complete and
`
`balanced nutrition and meet Association of American Feed Control
`
`Officials (AAFCO) requirements.”
`
`c. “When introducing a new product, Association of American Feed
`
`Control Officials (AAFCO) feeding trials are completed at a farm
`
`with an in-home atmosphere that is non-invasive, non-lethal and cage-
`
`free.”
`
`56. By failing to disclose the Aflatoxin contamination of the Product to
`
`Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant violated the Georgia FBPA because
`
`Defendant represented that Midwestern Pet Food had characteristics and benefits
`
`that it does not have, and represented that the Products were of a particular
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00009-RLY-MPB Document 1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 18 of 35 PageID #: 18
`
`
`
`standard, quality, or grade (i.e., nutritious, balanced, etc.) when they were of
`
`
`
`
`
`another. See Ga. Code Ann. §§ 10-1-393(b)(5) & (7).
`
`57. Defendant advertised the Products as nutritious and of a good quality,
`
`with the intent not to sell them as advertised, in violation of § 10-1-393(b)(9).
`
`58. Defendant’s unfair and deceptive acts or practices occurred repeatedly
`
`in Midwestern’s course of trade or business, were material, were capable of
`
`deceiving a substantial portion of the purchasing public, and as a result, caused
`
`economic harm to owners and purchasers of Midwestern Pet Food.
`
`59. Through its product testing, Defendant knew or should have known
`
`about the defective nature of the Midwestern Pet Food.
`
`60. Defendant was under a duty to Plaintiff and Class Members to
`
`disclose the defective nature of the Product, because:
`
`a. Defendant was in a superior position to know the true state of facts
`
`about Midwestern Pet Food.
`
`b. Plaintiff and Class Members could not reasonably have been expected
`
`to learn or discover that the Midwestern Pet Food was contaminated
`
`until it actually caused adverse health effects in their pets; and
`
`c. Defendant knew that Plaintiff and Class Members could not
`
`reasonably have been expected to learn or discover that the
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00009-RLY-MPB Document 1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 19 of 35 PageID #: 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Midwestern Pet Food was contaminated until it actually caused
`
`adverse health effects in their pets.
`
`61. Defendant knew or should have known that its conduct violated the
`
`Georgia FBPA.
`
`62.
`
`In failing to disclose the defective nature of Midwestern Pet Food,
`
`Defendant knowingly and intentionally concealed material facts and breached its
`
`duty not to do so.
`
`63. The facts Defendant concealed from Plaintiff and Class Members are
`
`material in that a reasonable consumer would have considered them to be
`
`important in deciding whether to purchase the Product. Moreover, a reasonable
`
`consumer would consider the contamination to be an undesirable quality, as
`
`Plaintiff and Class Members did. Had Plaintiff and Class Members known about
`
`the contamination, they would not have purchased the Product.
`
`64. Plaintiff and Class Members, like all objectively reasonable
`
`consumers, did not expect their pet food purchase to be contaminated. It is a
`
`reasonable and objective consumer expectation for consumers to expect pet food
`
`not to poison their pets.
`
`65. As a result of Defendant’s misconduct, Plaintiff and Class Members
`
`have been harmed and suffered actual damages including veterinary bills, medical
`
`
`
`- 19 -
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00009-RLY-MPB Document 1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 20 of 35 PageID #: 20
`
`
`
`expenses, replacement pet food, and emotional anguish resulting from death or
`
`
`
`
`
`illness of a cherished pet.
`
`66. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unfair or deceptive
`
`acts or practices, Plaintiff and Class Members suffered and will continue to suffer
`
`actual damages in that they have experienced and may continue to experience
`
`ongoing medical expenses, and emotional anguish, due to damage to their pets’
`
`health.
`
`67. Defendant’s violations present a continuing risk to Plaintiff and to the
`
`general public. Defendant’s unlawful acts and practices complained of herein
`
`affect the public interest.
`
`68. Thus, pursuant to Ga. Code Ann. § 10-1-399, Plaintiff seeks, in
`
`addition to equitable relief, actual and statutory damages, attorneys’ fees and
`
`expenses, treble damages, and punitive damages as permitted under the Georgia
`
`FBPA and applicable law.
`
`COUNT II
`VIOLATIONS OF THE GEORGIA
`UNIFORM DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT
`(Ga. Code Ann. §§ 10-1-370, et seq.)
`(On Behalf of the Georgia Class)
`
` Plaintiff incorporates by reference all allegations of the preceding
`
`69.
`
`paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
`
`70. Plaintiff brings this claim on behalf of herself and the Georgia Class.
`
`
`
`- 20 -
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00009-RLY-MPB Document 1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 21 of 35 PageID #: 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`71. Defendant, Plaintiff, and Class members are “persons” within the
`
`meaning of Georgia’s Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“Georgia
`
`UDTPA”). Ga. Code Ann. § 10-1-371(5).
`
`72. The Georgia UDTPA prohibits “deceptive trade practices” which
`
`include the “misrepresentation of standard, quality, or grade of goods and
`
`services,” “engaging in any other conduct which similar creates a likelihood of
`
`confusion or misunderstanding,” and “representing that goods or services have
`
`sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, or benefits that they do not
`
`have,” and “[a]dvertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as
`
`advertised.” Ga. Code Ann. § 10-1-372.
`
`73. By failing to disclose the defective nature of the Product to Plaintiff
`
`and Class Members, Defendant engaged in deceptive trade practices in violation of
`
`the Georgia UDTPA, because Defendant represented that the Class Vehicles had
`
`characteristics and benefits that they do not have, and represented that the Class
`
`Vehicles were of a particular standard, quality, or grade (i.e. nutritious and high-
`
`quality, etc.) when they were of another. See Ga. Code Ann. §§ 10-1- 372(5), (7),
`
`(9).
`
`74. Defendant advertised Midwestern Pet Food as nutritious and of high
`
`quality, with the intent not to sell the Products as advertised, in violation of Ga.
`
`Code Ann. § 10-1-372(12). Defendant’s unfair and deceptive acts or practices
`
`
`
`- 21 -
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00009-RLY-MPB Document 1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 22 of 35 PageID #: 22
`
`
`
`occurred repeatedly in Defendant’s course of trade or business, were material, were
`
`
`
`
`
`capable of deceiving a substantial portion of the purchasing public, and as a result,
`
`caused economic harm on owners and purchasers of Midwestern Pet Food.
`
`75. Through Defendant’s product testing, it knew or should have known
`
`about the defective nature of Midwestern Pet Food.
`
`76. Defendant was under a duty to Plaintiff and Class Members to
`
`disclose the defective nature of the Product, because:
`
`a. Defendant was in a superior position to know the true state of facts
`
`about Midwestern Pet Food.
`
`b. Plaintiff and Class members could not reasonably have been expected
`
`to learn or discover that Midwestern Pet Food was contaminated until
`
`it actually caused adverse health effects in their pets; and
`
`c. Defendant knew that Plaintiff and Class members could not
`
`reasonably have been expected to learn or discover that Midwestern
`
`Pet Food was contaminated until it actually caused adverse health
`
`effects in their pets.
`
`77. Thus, Defendant knew or should have known that its conduct violated
`
`the Georgia UDTPA.
`
`
`
`- 22 -
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00009-RLY-MPB Document 1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 23 of 35 PageID #: 23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`78.
`
`In failing to disclose the defective nature of the Product, Defendant
`
`knowingly and intentionally concealed material facts and breached its duty not to
`
`do so.
`
`79. The facts Defendant concealed from Plaintiff and Class Members are
`
`material in that a reasonable consumer would have considered them to be
`
`important in deciding whether to purchase the Product. Moreover, a reasonable
`
`consumer would consider the c