Case 1:20-cv-05125-ENV-LB Document 1 Filed 10/25/20 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 1
`
`
`
`Sheehan & Associates, P.C.
`Spencer Sheehan
`60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 409
`Great Neck, NY 11021-3104
`Telephone: (516) 268-7080
`spencer@spencersheehan.com
`
`United States District Court
`Eastern District of New York
`
`Stephen Bradshaw, individually and on
`behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`1:20-cv-05125
`
`- against -
`
`Complaint
`
`Blue Diamond Growers,
`
`Defendant
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff by attorneys alleges upon information and belief, except for allegations pertaining
`
`to plaintiff, which are based on personal knowledge:
`
`1.
`
`Blue Diamond Growers (“defendant”) manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and
`
`sells blends of almond milk and coconut milk under the Almond Breeze brand purporting to be
`
`flavored only with vanilla (“Product”).
`
`2.
`
`The Product is available to consumers from retail and online stores of third-parties
`
`and is sold in cartons of 32 OZ and 64 OZ.
`
`3.
`
`The relevant front label representations include “Unsweetened,” “Vanilla,” “Almond
`
`Breeze,” “Almond Coconut Blend,” “almondmilk coconutmilk blend” and pictures of almonds
`
`and coconuts.1
`
`
`1 The original complaint included a different version of the product label. The version included here is the label relied
`on by Plaintiffs.
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-05125-ENV-LB Document 1 Filed 10/25/20 Page 2 of 18 PageID #: 2
`
`
`
`4.
`
`The representation as “Vanilla” is false, deceptive and misleading because the
`
`Product contains fake, artificial vanilla which provides the vanilla taste, and the amount of real
`
`vanilla, if any, is trace or de minimis.
`
`5. Vanilla (Vanilla planifolia Andrews and Vanilla tahitenis Moore) comes from an
`
`orchid plant that originated in Mexico where it was first cultivated.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-05125-ENV-LB Document 1 Filed 10/25/20 Page 3 of 18 PageID #: 3
`
`6.
`
`The vanilla orchid produces a fruit pod, the vanilla bean, which is the raw material
`
`for true vanilla flavorings.
`
`7.
`
`The vanilla bean is not consumed by itself – it is heated in the sun for weeks until
`
`being soaked in alcohol solution and its flavor constituents extracted (vanilla extract).
`
`8. An example of the compounds which provide vanilla’s flavor are shown below in a
`
`sample of vanilla extract.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-05125-ENV-LB Document 1 Filed 10/25/20 Page 4 of 18 PageID #: 4
`
`9. While the main flavor compound of vanilla is vanillin (MS Scan # 759, 77.4301 Peak
`
`Area %), vanilla’s unique flavor is due to over 200 compounds scientists have identified, including
`
`volatile constituents such as acids, ethers, alcohols, acetals, heterocyclics, phenolics,
`
`hydrocarbons, esters and carbonyls.
`
`10. Methyl cinnamate (MS Scan # 751) and p-cresol (MS Scan # 415) provide cinnamon
`
`and creamy flavor notes to vanilla.
`
`11. Other compounds present in relatively significant amounts include acetovanillone,
`
`cinnamyl alcohol, guiaicol, p-cresol, p-hydroxybenzoic acid (MS Scan # 832, 0.2867), vanillic
`
`acid (MS Scan # 892, 1.2120) and vanillyl ethyl ether.
`
`12. The popularity of vanilla in the 19th century led to the isolation of the vanillin
`
`molecule from vanilla, which became the first artificial flavor.
`
`13. This availability of low-cost vanillin resulted in companies adulterating foods
`
`purporting to contain vanilla, by either including no vanilla or a trace or de minimis amount,
`
`boosted by added synthetic vanillin.
`
`14. However, vanillin separated from the rest of the vanilla bean it lacked the other
`
`components of vanilla’s flavor.
`
`15. Consumer and industry groups have long sought to prevent this deception.
`
`16. The earliest efforts to prevent fraud in vanilla products was the U.S. Pharmacopeia
`
`standard, which required a specific weight of vanilla beans as the source for vanilla extract.
`
`17. The focus was on the weight of actual vanilla beans, because this would prevent
`
`companies from adding vanillin to a small amount of vanilla beans.
`
`18. Consumer deception continued into the 20th century, with government entities
`
`regularly penalizing companies that deceived consumers by labeled their products and foods as
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-05125-ENV-LB Document 1 Filed 10/25/20 Page 5 of 18 PageID #: 5
`
`“vanilla” but were little more than vanillin with caramel coloring.
`
`19. Congress took note of this consumer deception, and directed the Food and Drug
`
`Administration (“FDA”) to establish standards to prevent the marketing of foods from which
`
`traditional constituents were removed and new or different (often cheaper and artificial)
`
`ingredients were substituted.
`
`20. Vanilla was one of these foods, and regulations were enacted which prevented
`
`vanillin from being added to vanilla without disclosing this fact to consumers.
`
`21. For over fifty (50) years, companies’ adherence to labeling foods containing vanillin
`
`as artificially flavored gave consumers confidence to trust what was on a label.
`
`22. When a food was labeled as “vanilla” without qualification, it was understood by
`
`consumers that the flavoring was only from the ingredient of vanilla beans.
`
`23. These regulations effectively established custom and practice in the so that
`
`consumers’ experience has primed them to infer from a product’s labeling whether the flavor
`
`source is entirely from the characterizing vanilla bean ingredient or not.
`
`24.
`
`In early 2018, in response to reports of a surge in fraudulent vanilla flavored foods,
`
`the flavor industry – The Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association of the United States or
`
`“FEMA” – urged companies to return to truthfully labeling vanilla foods so consumers would not
`
`be misled by artificial vanilla flavors where foods were labeled only with “vanilla.” See John B.
`
`Hallagan and Joanna Drake, FEMA, “Labeling Vanilla Flavorings and Vanilla-Flavored Foods in
`
`the U.S.,” Perfumer & Flavorist, Vol. 43 at p. 46, Apr. 25, 2018 (“Hallagan & Drake”).2
`
`25. Based on the term “Vanilla” and the absence of any qualifying terms, reasonable
`
`
`2 Hallagan and Drake, “There are many current examples of food products that are labeled as ‘vanilla’ that are clearly
`mislabeled and therefore in violation of FDA regulations.” FEMA’s cri de coeur was not completely magnanimous.
`It presently enjoys a special relationship with the FDA whereby its committee is responsible for certifying new food
`ingredients are safe for consumption. If companies flout the regulations, FEMA’s status would be undermined.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-05125-ENV-LB Document 1 Filed 10/25/20 Page 6 of 18 PageID #: 6
`
`consumers, and Plaintiffs, expect(ed) the Product’s vanilla taste to be only from vanilla beans.
`
`26.
`
`In a nationwide survey of over four hundred people of various educational, ethnic
`
`and socio-economic backgrounds, over sixty-six (66) percent understood the Product’s “Vanilla”
`
`statement to mean the vanilla taste came from vanilla beans from the vanilla plant while twenty-
`
`eight (28) percent expected the vanilla taste was from non-vanilla sources.
`
`27. Of the sample surveyed, approximately fifty-six (56) percent indicated they would
`
`be less likely to purchase the Product if they knew the vanilla taste came from artificial vanilla
`
`flavors.
`
`28. Though the Product’s front label only references “Vanilla,” the ingredient list does
`
`not clarify and disclose to consumers that its vanilla taste comes predominantly from non-vanilla
`
`sources, since the flavoring is declared as “Natural Flavors.”
`
`INGREDIENTS: ALMONDMILK (FILTERED WATER, ALMONDS),
`COCONUTMILK
`(FILTERED WATER, COCONUT CREAM),
`CALCIUM CARBONATE, NATURAL FLAVORS, POTASSIUM
`CITRATE, SEA SALT, SUNFLOWER LECITHIN, GELLAN GUM,
`VITAMIN A PALMITATE, VITAMIN D2, D-ALPHA-TOCOPHEROL
`(NATURAL VITAMIN E).
`
`
`
`29. That the “Natural Flavors” contains added vanillin is demonstrated through GC-MS
`
`analysis, a method of targeted and non-targeted detection which can identify the range of volatile
`
`compounds responsible for vanilla’s flavor with minimal to no degradation.
`
`30. The benefit of such an approach is the focus on signals generated and comparison
`
`with a known authentic sample.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-05125-ENV-LB Document 1 Filed 10/25/20 Page 7 of 18 PageID #: 7
`Case 1:20-cv-05125-ENV-LB Document 1 Filed 10/25/20 Page 7 of 18 PageID #: 7
`
`MS
`
`Area
`
`Scan #
`100
`138
`208
`215
`253
`281
`313
`330
`338
`378
`384
`414
`427
`470
`492
`541
`549
`558
`569
`578
`592
`599
`605
`625
`637
`657
`660
`675
`695
`704
`726
`757
`809
`820
`829
`852
`869
`893
`900
`923
`946
`968
`986
`1019
`1035
`1062
`1082
`1086
`1117
`1145
`1276
`1434
`1467
`1486
`1499
`1656
`1663
`1695
`
`Integration Peak Assignment
`54739 formic acid
`155343 acetic acid
`179712 acetol
`19321 propanoic acid
`110306 acetoin
`301046 1.2—propylene glycol
`14350 butyric acid
`23498 1,3-butanedioi
`72387 hexanai
`34688 methyl pyrazine
`24576 furfural
`66189 furfuryl alcohot
`25818 pentanoic acid
`12102 heptanal
`80103 2,5—dimethylpyrazine
`311750 hexanoic acid
`16426 methyl furfural
`140563 benzaldehyde
`36299 6-methyl-5-hepten-2-one
`15551 2-pentylfuran
`23802 octanal
`42217 trimethylpyrazine
`12512 1H-pyrrolen2-carboxaldehyde
`37005 cyclotene
`42556 benzyl alcohol
`96229 heptanoic acid
`127596 2—ace’ryl pyrrole
`148305 tetramethyipyrazine
`39158 guiaicol
`112417 nonanaE
`15725391 maltol
`613569 octanoic acid + benzoic acid
`62481 decanal
`3960472 naphthalene-d8 (internal standard)
`174273 hydrowmethylfurfural (HMF)
`369429 nonanoic acid
`271802 gamma-octalactone
`42902 delta-octaiactone
`99937 2.4«decadienal
`239566 2,4-decadienal
`391210 decanoic acid
`674802 gamma-nonalactone
`43483 delta—nonalactone
`63016900 vanillin
`18427 geranyl acetone
`478409 gamma-decalactone
`10391 acetovanillone
`19537 delta-decalactone
`1805139 lauric acid
`35452 ethyl iaurate
`79118 myristic acid
`91441 methyl palmitate
`302497 vanillin glyceryl acetal
`171521 vanillin glyceryl acetal
`194697 vanillin glyceryl acetal
`205663 methyl linoleate
`312939 methyl oieate
`29580 methyl stearate
`87851120 Totai (exckuding internal standard)
`
`7
`
`Conc.
`
`PPM wlw
`0.014
`0.039
`0.045
`0.005
`0.028
`0076
`0.004
`0.006
`0.018
`0.009
`0.006
`0.017
`0.007
`0.003
`0.020
`0.079
`0.004
`0.035
`0.009
`0.004
`0.006
`0.011
`0.003
`0.009
`0.011
`0.024
`0.032
`0.037
`0.010
`0.028
`3.971
`0.155
`0.016
`1.000
`0.044
`0.093
`0.069
`0,011
`0.025
`0.060
`0.099
`0.170
`0.011
`15,911
`0.005
`0.121
`0.003
`0.005
`0.456
`0.009
`0.020
`0.023
`0.076
`0.043
`0.049
`0.052
`0.079
`0.007
`22.183
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-05125-ENV-LB Document 1 Filed 10/25/20 Page 8 of 18 PageID #: 8
`
`31. The results show the Product contains an abnormal excess of vanillin (MS Scan #
`
`1019, 15.911 PPM) relative to the profile of minor components in a vanilla preparation, which is
`
`a strong indicator it contains vanillin from non-vanilla sources.
`
`32. When vanillin is present from vanilla beans, it will be accompanied by other
`
`compounds present in vanilla in small amounts, such as p-hydroxybenzoic acid and vanillic acid.
`
`33. The above sample of vanilla extract reveals that the ratio of vanillin to p-
`
`hydroxybenzoic acid is 270 (vanillin, MS Scan # 759, 77.4301 divided by p-hydroxybenzoic acid,
`
`MS Scan # 832, 0.2867) and vanillin to vanillic acid is 64 (vanillin, MS Scan # 759, 77.4301
`
`divided by vanillic acid, MS Scan # 892, 1.2120).
`
`34. Assuming that all vanillin in the Product came from vanilla beans, it would be
`
`expected to contain p-hydroxybenzoic acid at 0.059 PPM and vanillic acid at 0.249 PPM, based
`
`on their relative amounts in the vanilla extract sample.
`
`35. The failure to detect p-hydroxybenzoic acid and vanillic acid, despite these
`
`compounds being analyzed for, means that the Product contains a trace or de minimis real vanilla
`
`and added vanillin.
`
`36. The representation of “vanilla” is misleading because consumers expect to be told
`
`the Product is flavored with vanillin through a label statement of “artificially flavored.”
`
`37. Because the Product is characterized as “vanilla” and “contains vanillin derived from
`
`a non vanilla bean source,” it should be labeled as “artificially flavored.” FDA Letter, Margaret-
`
`Hanna Emerick, FDA, to Richard Brownell, February 25, 2016; See 21 C.F.R.101.22(i)(2).
`
`38. By omitting “artificial flavor” or “artificially flavored” from the front label,
`
`consumers are not told that the Product’s taste is from artificial vanilla flavors.
`
`39. Consumers who read the ingredient list will expect that the “Natural Flavors” are
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-05125-ENV-LB Document 1 Filed 10/25/20 Page 9 of 18 PageID #: 9
`
`other natural vanilla flavors instead of artificial vanilla flavors and are misled to believe that the
`
`Product contains more vanilla than it does.
`
`40. Consumers are entitled to know “whether the product [they are buying] is flavored
`
`with a vanilla flavoring derived from vanilla beans, in whole or in part, or whether the food’s
`
`vanilla flavor is provided by flavorings not derived from vanilla beans.”3
`
`41. Plaintiff reasonably believed that the “vanilla” representation on the front label of
`
`the Product meant that the Product was flavored only from the characterizing ingredient of vanilla
`
`beans and did not contain added vanillin, because this information is required to be disclosed, viz,
`
`by stating “artificially flavored.”
`
`42. Defendant knows consumers will pay more for the Product because the front label
`
`only states “vanilla” and not “artificially flavored.”
`
`43. Defendant’s omission and failure to disclose artificial vanilla flavor on the front label
`
`is deceptive and misleading to consumers.
`
`44. Defendant’s branding and packaging of the Product is designed to – and does –
`
`deceive, mislead, and defraud plaintiff and consumers.
`
`45. 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.
`
`46. The value of the Product that plaintiff purchased and consumed was materially less
`
`than its value as represented by defendant.
`
`47. Had plaintiff and class members known the truth, they would not have bought the
`
`Product or would have paid less for them.
`
`48. As a result of the false and misleading labeling, the Product is an sold at a premium
`
`3 Id.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-05125-ENV-LB Document 1 Filed 10/25/20 Page 10 of 18 PageID #: 10
`
`price, approximately no less than $3.59 per 32 OZ, excluding tax, compared to other similar
`
`products represented in a non-misleading way, and higher than the price of the Product if it were
`
`represented in a non-misleading way.
`
`Jurisdiction and Venue
`
`49.
`
`Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”). 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)
`
`50. Under CAFA, district courts have “original federal jurisdiction over class actions
`
`involving (1) an aggregate amount in controversy of at least $5,000,000; and (2) minimal
`
`diversity[.]” Gold v. New York Life Ins. Co., 730 F.3d 137, 141 (2d Cir. 2013).
`
`51. Plaintiff Stephen Bradshaw is a citizen of New York.
`
`52. Defendant Blue Diamond Growers, is a California corporation with a principal place
`
`of business in Sacramento, Sacramento County, California and is a citizen of California.
`
`53. “Minimal diversity” exists because plaintiff Stephen Bradshaw and defendant are
`
`citizens of different states.
`
`54. Upon information and belief, sales of the Product in New York exceed $5 million
`
`per year, exclusive of interest and costs, and the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5
`
`million per year.
`
`55. Venue is proper in this judicial district because a substantial part of the events or
`
`omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this District, viz, the decision of plaintiff to purchase
`
`the Product and the misleading representations and/or their recognition as such.
`
`56. This court has personal jurisdiction over defendant because it conducts and transacts
`
`business, contracts to supply and supplies goods within New York.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-05125-ENV-LB Document 1 Filed 10/25/20 Page 11 of 18 PageID #: 11
`
`57. Plaintiff Stephen Bradshaw is a citizen of New York, Staten Island, Richmond
`
`Parties
`
`County.
`
`58. Defendant Blue Diamond Growers is a California corporation with a principal place
`
`of business in Sacramento, California, Sacramento County and is a citizen of California.
`
`59. During the relevant statutes of limitations for each cause of action alleged, plaintiff
`
`purchased the Product within his district and/or State for personal and household consumption
`
`and/or use in reliance on the representations of the Product.
`
`60. Plaintiff Stephen Bradshaw purchased the Product on numerous occasions during
`
`2019, including several times during the spring and summer of 2019, at stores including ShopRite,
`
`985 Richmond Ave, Staten Island, NY 10314.
`
`61. Plaintiff bought the Product at or exceeding the above-referenced price because he
`
`liked the product for its intended use and relied upon the front label claims, expected the vanilla
`
`taste to come exclusively and/or predominantly from vanilla beans and did not expect its vanilla
`
`taste to be provided by artificial vanilla flavors.
`
`62. Plaintiff was deceived by and relied upon the Product's deceptive labeling.
`
`63. Plaintiff would not have purchased the Product in the absence of Defendant’s
`
`misrepresentations and omissions.
`
`64. The Product was worth less than what Plaintiff paid for it and he would not have paid
`
`as much absent Defendant's false and misleading statements and omissions.
`
`65. Plaintiff intends to, seeks to, and will purchase the Product again when he can do so
`
`with the assurance that Product's labels are consistent with the Product’s components.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-05125-ENV-LB Document 1 Filed 10/25/20 Page 12 of 18 PageID #: 12
`
`Class Allegations
`
`66. The class will consist of all purchasers of the Product who reside in New York during
`
`the applicable statutes of limitations.
`
`67. Plaintiff seek class-wide injunctive relief based on Rule 23(b) in addition to a
`
`monetary relief class.
`
`68. 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.
`
`69. 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.
`
`70. Plaintiff is an adequate representatives because his interests do not conflict with other
`
`members.
`
`71. No individual inquiry is necessary since the focus is only on defendant’s practices
`
`and the class is definable and ascertainable.
`
`72.
`
`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.
`
`73. Plaintiff's counsel is competent and experienced in complex class action litigation
`
`and intends to protect class members’ interests adequately and fairly.
`
`74. Plaintiff seeks class-wide injunctive relief because the practices continue.
`
`New York General Business Law (“GBL”) §§ 349 & 350
`(Consumer Protection Statute)
`
`75. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
`
`76. Plaintiff and class members desired to purchase and consume products which were
`
`as described and marketed by defendant and expected by reasonable consumers, given the product
`
`type.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-05125-ENV-LB Document 1 Filed 10/25/20 Page 13 of 18 PageID #: 13
`
`77. Defendant’s acts and omissions are not unique to the parties and have a broader
`
`impact on the public.
`
`78. Defendant misrepresented the substantive, quantitative, qualitative, compositional
`
`and/or organoleptic attributes of the Product.
`
`79. The amount and proportion of the characterizing component, vanilla, has a material
`
`bearing on price and consumer acceptance of the Product and consumers do not expect artificial
`
`vanilla because it was not stated on the front label or ingredient list, where consumers are
`
`accustomed to looking and seeing this information.
`
`80. Plaintiff relied on the statements, omissions and representations of defendant, and
`
`defendant knew or should have known the falsity of same.
`
`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. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
`
`83. Defendant misrepresented the substantive, quantitative, qualitative, compositional
`
`and/or organoleptic attributes of the Product.
`
`84. The amount and proportion of the characterizing component, vanilla, has a material
`
`bearing on price and consumer acceptance of the Product and consumers do not expect artificial
`
`vanilla because it was not stated on the front label or ingredient list, where consumers are
`
`accustomed to looking and seeing this information.
`
`85. Defendant had a duty to disclose the non-vanilla, artificial flavors and/or provide
`
`non-deceptive marketing of the Product and knew or should have known same were false or
`
`misleading.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-05125-ENV-LB Document 1 Filed 10/25/20 Page 14 of 18 PageID #: 14
`
`86. This duty is based on defendant’s position as an entity which has held itself out as
`
`having special knowledge and experience in the production, service and/or sale of the product type.
`
`87. The representations took advantage of consumers’ cognitive shortcuts made at the
`
`point-of-sale and their trust in defendant, a well-known and respected brand or entity in this sector.
`
`88. Plaintiff and class members reasonably and justifiably relied on these negligent
`
`misrepresentations and omissions, which served to induce and did induce, the purchase of the
`
`Product.
`
`89. Plaintiff and class members would not have purchased the Product or paid as much
`
`if the true facts had been known, suffering damages.
`
`Breaches of Express Warranty, Implied Warranty of Merchantability and
`Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301, et seq.
`
`90. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
`
`91. The Product was manufactured, labeled and sold by defendant or at its express
`
`directions and instructions, and warranted to plaintiff and class members that they possessed
`
`substantive, quality, organoleptic, and/or compositional attributes it did not.
`
`92. Defendant had a duty to disclose and/or provide non-deceptive descriptions and
`
`marketing of the Product.
`
`93. The amount and proportion of the characterizing component, vanilla, has a material
`
`bearing on price and consumer acceptance of the Product and consumers do not expect artificial
`
`vanilla because it was not stated on the front label or ingredient list, where consumers are
`
`accustomed to looking and seeing this information.
`
`94. This duty is based, in part, on defendant’s position as one of the most recognized
`
`companies in the nation in this sector.
`
`95. Plaintiff provided or will provide notice to defendant, its agents, representatives,
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-05125-ENV-LB Document 1 Filed 10/25/20 Page 15 of 18 PageID #: 15
`
`retailers and their employees.
`
`96. Defendant received notice and should have been aware of these misrepresentations
`
`due to numerous complaints by consumers to its main office over the past several years regarding
`
`the Product, of the type described here.
`
`97. The Product did not conform to its affirmations of fact and promises due to
`
`defendant’s actions and were not merchantable.
`
`98. Plaintiff and class members would not have purchased the Product or paid as much
`
`if the true facts had been known, suffering damages.
`
`Fraud
`
`99. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
`
`100. Defendant misrepresented
`
`the substantive, quality, compositional and/or
`
`organoleptic attributes of the Product.
`
`101. The amount and proportion of the characterizing component, vanilla, has a material
`
`bearing on price and consumer acceptance of the Product and consumers do not expect artificial
`
`vanilla because it was not stated on the front label or ingredient list, where consumers are
`
`accustomed to looking and seeing this information.
`
`102. Defendant’s fraudulent intent is evinced by its failure to accurately identify the
`
`Product on the front label and ingredient list, when it knew its statements were neither true nor
`
`accurate and misled consumers.
`
`103. 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 1:20-cv-05125-ENV-LB Document 1 Filed 10/25/20 Page 16 of 18 PageID #: 16
`
`104. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
`
`Unjust Enrichment
`
`105. 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 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: October 25, 2020
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Sheehan & Associates, P.C.
`/s/Spencer Sheehan
`Spencer Sheehan
`60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 409
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-05125-ENV-LB Document 1 Filed 10/25/20 Page 17 of 18 PageID #: 17
`
`
`
`
`
`Great Neck NY 11021-3104
`Tel: (516) 268-7080
`Fax: (516) 234-7800
`spencer@spencersheehan.com
`E.D.N.Y. # SS-8533
`S.D.N.Y. # SS-2056
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-05125-ENV-LB Document 1 Filed 10/25/20 Page 18 of 18 PageID #: 18
`
`1:20-cv-05125
`United States District Court
`Eastern District of New York
`
`
`Stephen Bradshaw, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`
`
` - against -
`
`
`Blue Diamond Growers,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Defendant
`
`Complaint
`
`
`Sheehan & Associates, P.C.
`60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 409
`Great Neck NY 11021-3104
`Tel: (516) 268-7080
`Fax: (516) 234-7800
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, the undersigned, an attorney admitted to practice in the courts of
`New York State, certifies that, upon information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable
`under the circumstances, the contentions contained in the annexed documents are not frivolous.
`
`Dated: October 25, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Spencer Sheehan
` Spencer Sheehan
`
`
`
`
`
`