Case 1:21-cv-00870-DG-SJB Document 1 Filed 02/17/21 Page 1 of 53 PageID #: 1
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`
`MICHELLE WALLS, on behalf of herself and all
`others similarly situated; and N.W., a minor child,
`by his parent and general guardian Michelle Walls,
`on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated;
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
` v.
`
`BEECH-NUT NUTRITION COMPANY;
`THE HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC.;
`NURTURE, INC. D/B/A HAPPY FAMILY
`ORGANICS; GERBER PRODUCTS
`COMPANY; and PLUM PBC.;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No.: 1:21-cv-00870
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs Michelle Walls and N.W.1 by his mother and general guardian Michelle
`
`Walls (“Plaintiffs”), by and through their counsel, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others
`
`similarly situated, bring this Class Action Complaint against the Defendants Beech-Nut Nutrition
`
`Co. (“Beech-Nut”), The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. (“Hain”), Nurture, Inc. (“Nurture”) d/b/a
`
`Happy Family Organics, Gerber Products Co. (“Gerber”), and Plum Public Benefit Corp.
`
`(“Plum”) (collectively, “Defendants”).
`
`2.
`
`Michelle Walls, like many parents of young and newborn children, places a
`
`premium on only exposing her infant son, N.W., to the safest and highest quality foods available
`
`
`
` 1
`
` Plaintiff N.W. is a minor and is identified here by his initials. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2.
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00870-DG-SJB Document 1 Filed 02/17/21 Page 2 of 53 PageID #: 2
`
`
`
`on the market. Defendants manufactured, advertised, marketed, distributed, and sold their
`
`organic baby food as the best and healthiest options available.
`
`3.
`
`Accordingly, Plaintiff Walls purchased Defendants’ organic baby food products
`
`and fed them to her son almost exclusively for the past six months. Like so many parents, Walls
`
`reasonably believed that Defendants’ baby foods were safe to feed to her son.
`
`4.
`
`But as Walls discovered two weeks ago—and as Defendants already knew—that was
`
`not the case.
`
`5.
`
`On February 4, 2021, the United States House of Representatives’ Subcommittee
`
`on Economic and Consumer Policy, Committee on Oversight and Reform (“House
`
`Subcommittee”) published a bombshell report revealing that several brands of baby food—
`
`including each of the Defendants’ baby food products (the “Tainted Baby Food Products”)—
`
`contained significant and dangerous levels of toxic heavy metals, including arsenic, lead, cadmium,
`
`and mercury (collectively, the “Toxic Heavy Metals”). See Staff of H. Subcomm. On Econ. And
`
`Consumer Policy, Comm. On Oversight and Reform, 117th Cong., Baby Foods Are Tainted with
`
`Dangerous Levels of Arsenic, Lead, Cadmium, and Mercury,
`
`https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/2021-02-
`
`04%20ECP%20Baby%20Food%20Staff%20Report.pdf (Feb. 4, 2021) (“Subcommittee Report” or
`
`“Rept.”; attached as Exhibit A).
`
`6.
`
`The Report noted that exposing children to toxic heavy metals causes permanent
`
`decreases in IQ, an increased risk of future criminal and antisocial behavior, and “untreatable and
`
`frequently permanent” brain damage. This exposure has real economic consequences, as one
`
`study has shown that for each IQ point lost, a child’s lifetime estimated earning capacity will
`
`decrease by over $18,000. See Rept. at 9.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00870-DG-SJB Document 1 Filed 02/17/21 Page 3 of 53 PageID #: 3
`
`
`
`7.
`
`Given the Defendants’ deceptive business practices and the harms such practices
`
`have caused to countless children in New York and the United States, Plaintiffs have brought this
`
`action and seek to represent Proposed Classes (as defined herein), who, from February 17, 2015,
`
`to the present, (1) purchased for personal/household use and not resale any of Defendants’
`
`Tainted Baby Food Products; or (2) consumed Defendants’ Tainted Baby Food Products.
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges claims for Defendants’ violation of New York General
`
`Business Law §§ 349 and 350, unjust enrichment, intentional misrepresentation, negligent
`
`misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, negligence, gross negligence, strict product liability,
`
`breach of express warranty, and breach of implied warranty.
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiffs seek injunctive and/or declaratory relief and monetary relief on behalf of
`
`the Proposed Classes including requiring the Defendants’ (i) accurate disclosure of the levels of the
`
`Toxic Heavy Metals present in the baby food products sold by Defendants in their respective
`
`marketing, advertising, and labeling; (ii) testing of ingredients and final products to accurately
`
`determine the levels of Toxic Heavy Metals present in Defendants’ baby food products; and (iii)
`
`restoring monies to the members of the Proposed Classes.
`
`PARTIES
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff Michelle Walls is a resident of Staten Island, New York. During the
`
`applicable statute of limitations period, Ms. Walls purchased Defendants’ Tainted Baby Food
`
`Products that, according to the Subcommittee Report and some Defendants’ internal data and
`
`documents referenced therein, were found to contain dangerous levels of Toxic Heavy Metals.
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff N.W. is a one-year old child who resides with his mother and general
`
`guardian Plaintiff Michelle Walls in Staten Island, New York. N.W. consumed the Tainted Baby
`
`Food Products manufactured and produced by Defendants that, according to the Subcommittee
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00870-DG-SJB Document 1 Filed 02/17/21 Page 4 of 53 PageID #: 4
`
`
`
`Report and some Defendants’ internal data and documents referenced therein, were found to
`
`contain dangerous levels of Toxic Heavy Metals.
`
`12. Defendant Beech-Nut Nutrition Co. is a New York corporation with its principal
`
`place of business and headquarters located at One Nutritious Place, Amsterdam, New York.
`
`13. Defendant Hain Celestial Group, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
`
`place of business and headquarters located at 111 Marcus Avenue, #1, Lake Success, New York.
`
`14. Defendant Gerber Products Co. is a Michigan corporation with its principal place
`
`of business and headquarters located at 1812 North Moore Street, Arlington, Virginia.
`
`15. Defendant Nurture Inc., also doing business as Happy Family Organics (“Happy
`
`Family”), is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business and headquarters at 1
`
`Maple Avenue, White Plains, New York.
`
`16. Defendant Plum PBC. is a Delaware public benefit corporation with its principal
`
`place of business and headquarters located at 1485 Park Avenue, Suite 200, Emeryville, California.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`17.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the Class Action Fairness
`
`Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). Plaintiffs are citizens of New York and Defendant
`
`Plum is a citizen of California; there are more than 100 Class Members; and the aggregate amount
`
`in controversy exceeds $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs.
`
`18.
`
`Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Three
`
`Defendants are headquartered in New York; each Defendant conducts substantial business in this
`
`State and judicial district through their sale of products and commercial websites; and a substantial
`
`part of the events and omissions giving rise to the alleged conduct occurred in, were directed to,
`
`and were emanated from this district.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00870-DG-SJB Document 1 Filed 02/17/21 Page 5 of 53 PageID #: 5
`
`
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`I.
`
`Congress’s Investigation Reveals Elevated Levels of Toxic Heavy Metals in Defendants’
`Baby Food.
`
`19. On November 19, 2019, the U.S. House Subcommittee “requested internal
`
`documents and test results from seven of the largest manufacturers of baby food in the United
`
`States,” including all of the Defendants. Rept. at 2.
`
`20. Defendants Nurture, Beech-Nut, Hain, and Gerber each responded to the House
`
`Subcommittee’s requests, producing “internal testing policies, test results for ingredients and/or
`
`finished products, and documentation about what the companies did with ingredients and/or
`
`finished products that exceeded their internal testing limits.” Id.
`
`21.
`
`Campbell Soup Co., parent corporation of Plum, refused to cooperate with the
`
`investigation. The Subcommittee Report expressed “great[] concern” about the refusal to
`
`cooperate and that it “might be obscuring the presence of even higher levels of toxic heavy metals
`
`in their baby food products than their competitors’ products.” Id.
`
`22.
`
`As mentioned above, on February 4, 2021, the House Subcommittee published its
`
`Report, which found that baby foods produced and sold by Defendants are “tainted with significant
`
`levels” of the Toxic Heavy Metals. Id.
`
`23.
`
`The Subcommittee Report showed that the levels of Toxic Heavy Metals present in
`
`the Tainted Baby Food Products are “multiples higher than allowed under existing regulations for
`
`other products.” For example:
`
`a. The federal Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) has set a maximum
`
`allowable level of 10 parts per billion (“ppb”) of arsenic in drinking water.
`
`Nurture’s “Happy Baby” baby food products contained as much as 180 ppb of
`
`arsenic, with over 25% of its products containing over 100 ppb, and the “typical
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00870-DG-SJB Document 1 Filed 02/17/21 Page 6 of 53 PageID #: 6
`
`
`
`baby food product it sold” containing 60 ppb. Hain’s “Earth’s Best Organic”
`
`baby food products contained as much as 129 ppb of arsenic, and used
`
`ingredients showing up to 309 ppb of arsenic in its products. Hain “typically”
`
`does not test its “finished products,” i.e., the baby food products it sells to the
`
`public, for dangerous elements such as Toxic Heavy Metals. Beech-Nut used
`
`ingredients that tested as high as 913.4 ppb of arsenic and “routinely” used
`
`additives that tested as high as 300 ppb of arsenic with the specific purpose of
`
`“address[ing] product characteristics such as ‘crumb softness.’” Gerber used
`
`ingredients that tested as high as 90 ppb of arsenic. Id. at 3–4.
`
`b. The FDA has set a maximum allowable level of 5 ppb of lead in drinking water.
`
`The FDA has set a maximum allowable level of 100 ppb of lead in candy. Id.
`
`at 21-22. Nurture sold baby food products that tested as high as 614 ppb of
`
`lead and almost 20% of its tested baby food products contained over 10 ppb.
`
`Hain used ingredients with as much as 352 ppb of lead, eighty-eight of its
`
`ingredients tested over 20 ppb of lead, and six of its ingredients tested over 200
`
`ppb of lead. Beech-Nut used ingredients with as much as 886.9 ppb of lead,
`
`with four-hundred eighty-three ingredients having over 5 ppb of lead, eighty-
`
`nine having over 15 ppb of lead, and fifty-seven having over 20 ppb of lead.
`
`Gerber used ingredients with as much as 48 ppb of lead, and “many” of its
`
`ingredients contain over 20 ppb of lead.2 Id. at 3–4.
`
`
`
` 2
`
` It is both disturbing and notable that, for comparison’s sake, the 90th percentile lead level among
`samples collected in Flint, Michigan’s water system during the Flint Water Crisis was 27 ppb. See
`Christopher Ingraham, This is how toxic Flint’s water really is, The Washington Post,
`
`(continued…)
`
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00870-DG-SJB Document 1 Filed 02/17/21 Page 7 of 53 PageID #: 7
`
`
`
`c. The FDA has set a maximum allowable level of 5 ppb of cadmium in drinking
`
`water. Beech-Nut used one-hundred-five ingredients with over 20 ppb, with
`
`some as high as 344.55 ppb of cadmium. Hain used one-hundred-two
`
`ingredients with over 20 ppb, with some as high as 260 ppb of cadmium. Sixty-
`
`five percent of Nurture’s finished and sold baby food products contained as
`
`much as 10 ppb of cadmium. Seventy-five percent of carrots used by Gerber
`
`contained greater than 5 ppb, with some as high as 87 ppb of cadmium. Id.
`
`d. The Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) has set a maximum allowable
`
`level of 2 ppb of mercury in drinking water. Nurture’s finished and sold baby
`
`food products contained as much as 10 ppb of mercury. Beech-Nut and Hain
`
`do not test for mercury in their baby food products. Gerber “rarely” tests for
`
`mercury in its baby food products. Id. at 4.
`
`24.
`
`The Subcommittee Report showed that Defendants, except Plum and its parent
`
`Campbell which refused to cooperate with the House Subcommittee’s investigation, have
`
`staggering and stratospheric internal limits when testing baby food products or ingredients for
`
`Toxic Heavy Metals, which would often have the effect of dangerous levels in ingredients or
`
`products nonetheless “passing” Defendants’ internal checks, although in some circumstances
`
`Defendants even sold baby food products in excess of their own threshold standards. For
`
`example:
`
`
`
`
`https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/15/this-is-how-toxic-flints-water-really-is/
`(Jan. 15, 2016).
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00870-DG-SJB Document 1 Filed 02/17/21 Page 8 of 53 PageID #: 8
`
`
`
`a. Nurture set its internal arsenic, lead, and cadmium thresholds up to 100 ppb.
`
`Nurture’s tested baby food products exceeded its own thresholds and were still
`
`sold to the public. Id. at 13–14, 22, 31.
`
`b. Depending on the ingredient tested, Beech-Nut set its internal arsenic and
`
`cadmium standards between 100 and 3,000 ppb. Id. at 4, 17–18. Beech-Nut
`
`accepted the use of ingredients that tested as high as 913.4 ppb of arsenic, even
`
`when the internal threshold was set at 100 ppb. Id. at 17. Its lead threshold
`
`was up to 1,000 ppb, ten times the FDA-accepted level in candy and two-
`
`hundred times the FDA-accepted level in drinking water. Id. at 23.
`
`c. Hain set its internal arsenic, lead, and cadmium standards up to 200 ppb for
`
`“some of its ingredients.” As reflected above, Hain used ingredients with
`
`arsenic, lead, and cadmium contents in excess of its own internal standards, and
`
`even admitted that its internal standard was based on “theoretical calculations”
`
`and that its testing “underestimated final product toxic heavy metal levels.” Id.
`
`at 4–5.
`
`25.
`
`The Subcommittee Report revealed that on August 1, 2019, Hain gave a secret
`
`presentation to the FDA. The presentation revealed:
`
`a. Testing ingredients, rather than final products, which Hain does,
`
`“underrepresent[ed]” Toxic Heavy Metal levels in its baby food products.
`
`Indeed, 100% of tested Hain baby food products had “inorganic arsenic levels
`
`… higher in the finished baby food than the company estimated they would be
`
`based on individual ingredient testing,” with levels between 28–93% higher in
`
`finished products than ingredients. Id. at 5.
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00870-DG-SJB Document 1 Filed 02/17/21 Page 9 of 53 PageID #: 9
`
`
`
`b. Not only was the quantity of arsenic concerning, but the breadth of baby food
`
`inventory with elevated arsenic levels was also significant. Hain said that half of
`
`its brown rice baby food products contained over 100 ppb of inorganic arsenic,
`
`with an average across all brown rice baby food products of 97.62 ppb. Id. at 5.
`
`c. Hain conceded that this was not exclusively caused by naturally occurring Toxic
`
`Heavy Metals in the ingredients it used in its baby food products. Rather, Hain
`
`said that it and other baby food producers were adding ingredients to their baby
`
`food products with high levels of Toxic Heavy Metals, including vitamin and
`
`mineral pre-mix.3 Id. at 5.
`
`26.
`
`The Committee’s findings were disturbing on many levels—e.g., that such harmful
`
`heavy metals could be found in such substantial amounts within Defendants’ organic and non-
`
`organic baby foods, the Defendants’ apparent knowledge of such toxic metals in their baby foods,
`
`and their apparent failure to take any steps to protect the infants and young babies regularly
`
`ingesting such toxic metals.
`
`27.
`
`As noted by the Committee, babies’ developing brains are “exceptionally sensitive
`
`to injury caused by toxic chemicals, and several developmental processes have been shown to be
`
`highly vulnerable to chemical toxicity.” Rept. at 9. The fact that babies are small, have other
`
`developing organ systems, and absorb more of the heavy metals than adults, exacerbates their risk
`
`from exposure to heavy metals. Id.
`
`28.
`
`Indeed, the FDA has declared that inorganic arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury
`
`are dangerous, particularly to infants and children. Id. They have “no established health benefit”
`
`
`
` 3
`
` The FDA, at the time under the direction of the Trump administration, took no new action in
`response to this disturbing presentation. See Rept. at 5.
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00870-DG-SJB Document 1 Filed 02/17/21 Page 10 of 53 PageID #: 10
`
`
`
`and “lead to illness, impairment, and in high doses, death.” Id. “[E]ven low levels of harmful
`
`metals from individual food sources, can sometimes add up to a level of concern.” Id. In short,
`
`infants and children are at the greatest risk of harm from toxic heavy metal exposure. Id.
`
`II.
`
`Defendants’ Deceptive, Misleading, and False Communications.
`
`29. Despite the disturbing results of these product and ingredient tests for Defendants’
`
`baby food products, Defendants published advertisements, communications, and product labeling
`
`that present the Tainted Baby Food Products as healthy, safe, suitable for babies, and that they
`
`help in children’s development. Below are a few examples.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00870-DG-SJB Document 1 Filed 02/17/21 Page 11 of 53 PageID #: 11
`
`
`
`30. Hain, under the Earth’s Best label, describes its baby food products as “time-
`
`trusted and safe” and that the products “are made from pure ingredients to help children grow up
`
`strong and healthy,” as shown below:
`
`
`
`http://www.hain.com/company/ (last accessed Feb. 11, 2021).
`
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00870-DG-SJB Document 1 Filed 02/17/21 Page 12 of 53 PageID #: 12
`
`
`
`31. Gerber says that its “Organic SmartNourish” baby food “help[s] support brain &
`
`eye development,” as shown below:
`
`
`
`
`
`https://www.behance.net/gallery/847372/Gerber-Baby-Food-tvc-print-online-outdoor (last accessed
`
`Feb. 11, 2021).
`
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00870-DG-SJB Document 1 Filed 02/17/21 Page 13 of 53 PageID #: 13
`
`
`
`32. On February 6, 2021, on its Facebook page, Gerber published a post that said that
`
`it “work[s] … to make sure your baby gets the best of what nature has to offer” and that “[a]fter the
`
`harvest, we make sure that the fruits and veggies are just right for baby” as shown below:
`
`https://www.facebook.com/Gerber (last accessed Feb. 10, 2021).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00870-DG-SJB Document 1 Filed 02/17/21 Page 14 of 53 PageID #: 14
`
`33. On Beech-Nut’s website, it says that it “conduct[s] over 20 rigorous tests on our
`
`purees, testing for up to 255 pesticides and heavy metals (like lead, cadmium, arsenic and other
`
`nasty stuff). Just like you would, we send the produce back if it’s not good enough” as shown
`
`below:
`
`https://www.beechnut.com/our-story/ (last accessed Feb. 11, 2021) (emphasis added above).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00870-DG-SJB Document 1 Filed 02/17/21 Page 15 of 53 PageID #: 15
`
`
`
`34. On Plum’s Facebook page, on March 1, 2019, Plum said “[w]hen you buy Plum,
`
`we understand you are trusting us with your little one. It is why we are always working hard to
`
`improve our ingredients … leaving you with an even better product you can rely on,” as shown
`
`below:
`
`https://www.facebook.com/PlumOrganics (Mar. 1, 2019) (last accessed Feb. 12, 2021).
`
`
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00870-DG-SJB Document 1 Filed 02/17/21 Page 16 of 53 PageID #: 16
`
`
`
`35.
`
`In Nurture’s Happy Family brand “Mission Report” from 2019, it claimed to
`
`“curate our ingredients and tailor our products to baby’s age and stage,” that it “taste[s] and
`
`thoroughly analyze[s] every batch of food and each individual ingredient that goes into our
`
`products,” that it “provide[s] your little one with products that, when part of a balanced diet, help
`
`them grow healthy and strong,” and that “[e]very product we make goes through a rigorous quality
`
`and safety test so you can feel confident in what you’re feeding your family,” as shown below:
`
`https://2iv8kb1bv1j9j5f3leoonqg8-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-
`
`
`
`content/uploads/2018/05/HappyFamilyOrganics_2019_MissionReport_1.pdf (last accessed Feb.
`
`12, 2021).
`
`
`III.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Walls Purchases the Tainted Baby Food Products for N.W.
`
`36. N.W., Plaintiff Walls’ son, was born in 2020.
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00870-DG-SJB Document 1 Filed 02/17/21 Page 17 of 53 PageID #: 17
`
`
`
`37.
`
`Plaintiff Michelle Walls is a dedicated and loving mother who places a premium on
`
`ensuring her son is healthy, and consumes food that will keep him healthy, growing, and
`
`developing.
`
`38.
`
`In making the decision about what to feed N.W. after stopping breastfeeding,
`
`Walls saw product labels and other product communications when shopping at Target and her
`
`local grocery stores and decided to purchase Defendants’ Tainted Baby Food Products, including
`
`but not limited to:
`
`a. Beech-Nut “Organics Banana, Cinnamon & Granola Jar,” which on its labeling
`
`and in Beech-Nut communications on its website describes the product as a
`
`“Stage 2” solid food “ideal … for your baby around 6 months and up;”
`
`b. Plum (1) “Mighty 4 Blends Banana, Blueberry, Sweet Potato, Carrot, Greek
`
`Yogurt & Millet Tots Pouch,” which on its labeling and in Plum’s
`
`communications on its website describes the product as containing “essential
`
`nutrients from 4 food group favorites to fuel your active tot,” and (2) “Stage 2
`
`Pear Blueberry Avocado & Granola,” which on its labeling and in Plum’s
`
`communications on its website describes the product as a stage “2” food
`
`appropriate for babies 6 months or older;
`
`c. Nurture (1) “Happy Tot Organics Super Smart Bananas, Mangos & Spinach
`
`Pouch,” which on its labeling and in Nurture’s communications on its website
`
`describes the product as one that “[n]ourish[es] your growing tot” and “help[s]
`
`support brain health … making this pouch perfect for wholesome, on-the-go
`
`eating,” and (2) “Happy Baby Organics Apples, Blueberries & Oats,” which on
`
`its labeling and in Nurture’s communications on its website describes the
`
`product as a “Stage 2” food suited to babies 6 months or older;
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00870-DG-SJB Document 1 Filed 02/17/21 Page 18 of 53 PageID #: 18
`
`
`
`d. Gerber (1) “Yogurt Melts,” which on its labeling describes the product as a food
`
`suitable to babies 8 months or older and in product description supplied on
`
`Target’s website says that “these snacks combine the delicious taste little ones
`
`love with the wholesome nutrition parents love,” and (2) “Oatmeal Banana”,
`
`which on its labeling and in Gerber’s communications on its website describes
`
`the product as an appropriate “2nd Food” for “Sitter” babies and that
`
`“Following Clean Field Farming[] practices, we keep our grains safe and
`
`wholesome from farm to kitchen;” and
`
`e. Hain (1) “Earth’s Best Apple Sunny Days Snack Bars,” which on its website
`
`describes the product as a snack suitable for children 2 years or older, and (2)
`
`“Earth’s Best Blueberry Breakfast Biscuits,” which on its website describes the
`
`product as a snack suitable for children 2 years or older.
`
`39. Walls, relying on their representations and reputations, trusted Defendants as baby
`
`food sellers, and considered Defendants’ baby food, and especially their organic baby food, to be
`
`the “gold standard.”
`
`40. Walls purchased the Tainted Baby Food Products from July 2020 to February
`
`2021, and later fed such Tainted Baby Food Products to her son N.W.
`
`41. Walls believed that the Tainted Baby Food Products were safe and healthy, relying
`
`on Defendants’ reputations, labels, marketing, and communications.
`
`42.
`
`As N.W. grew, Walls became concerned that he was not hitting certain
`
`“developmental benchmarks,” including but not limited to: walking, imitating others, verbalization,
`
`and pointing. N.W. also has outbursts where he wildly thrashes. She had no reason to believe the
`
`organic baby food products she had been purchasing from Defendants could be the cause, having
`
`paid a premium to buy baby food she believed to be safer and healthier than their competitors.
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00870-DG-SJB Document 1 Filed 02/17/21 Page 19 of 53 PageID #: 19
`
`
`
`43. On or around February 6, 2021, Walls saw media coverage of the Subcommittee
`
`Report. Shocked by what she read, she immediately stopped feeding N.W. the Tainted Baby
`
`Food Products and returned the remaining products she still had.
`
`44. On or about February 11, 2021, Walls requested that N.W.’s physician order a
`
`heavy metals blood tests for N.W., which would detect levels of the Toxic Heavy Metals in his
`
`blood. It is unusual to need to order a blood test for a one-year-old, and especially unusual,
`
`difficult, and distressing to draw the seven vials of blood necessary to run a panel of toxic heavy
`
`metal blood tests. Walls is in the process of arranging a safe and appropriate schedule of blood
`
`draws for N.W. for these tests.
`
`45. Walls is also arranging for N.W. to receive “early intervention” special education
`
`services, as she tries to understand what N.W. will need as far as educational, social, and medical
`
`services in order to help close the gaps of his developmental delays, and any other delays or
`
`conditions that may arise as a result of his consumption of elevated levels of Toxic Heavy Metals in
`
`the Tainted Baby Food Products.
`
`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`
`46.
`
`Plaintiffs request certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) of ten proposed
`
`injunctive and/or declaratory relief and damages classes, respectively, or sub-classes in the
`
`alternative, as laid out below:
`
`47.
`
`All persons within the United States who purchased Beech-Nut’s Tainted Baby
`
`Food Products from the beginning of any applicable limitations period through the date of class
`
`certification, excluding the judge or magistrate assigned to this case, Beech-Nut, any entity in which
`
`Beech-Nut has a controlling interest, Beech-Nut’s officers, directors, legal representatives,
`
`
`
`- 19 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00870-DG-SJB Document 1 Filed 02/17/21 Page 20 of 53 PageID #: 20
`
`
`
`successors, and assigns, and persons who purchased Beech-Nut’s Tainted Baby Food Products for
`
`the purpose of resale (the “National Beech-Nut Purchaser Class”);4
`
`48.
`
`All persons within the United States who purchased Hain’s Tainted Baby Food
`
`Products from the beginning of any applicable limitations period through the date of class
`
`certification, excluding the judge or magistrate assigned to this case, Hain, any entity in which Hain
`
`has a controlling interest, Hain’s officers, directors, legal representatives, successors, and assigns,
`
`and persons who purchased Hain’s Tainted Baby Food Products for the purpose of resale (the
`
`“National Hain Purchaser Class”);5
`
`49.
`
`All persons within the United States who purchased Gerber’s Tainted Baby Food
`
`Products from the beginning of any applicable limitations period through the date of class
`
`certification, excluding the judge or magistrate assigned to this case, Gerber, any entity in which
`
`Gerber has a controlling interest, Gerber’s officers, directors, legal representatives, successors, and
`
`
`
` 4
`
` In the alternative, Plaintiffs request certification of a class defined by all persons within the State
`of New York who purchased Beech-Nut’s Tainted Baby Food Products from the beginning of any
`applicable limitations period through the date of class certification, excluding the judge or
`magistrate assigned to this case, Beech-Nut, any entity in which Beech-Nut has a controlling
`interest, Beech-Nut’s officers, directors, legal representatives, successors, and assigns, and persons
`who purchased Beech-Nut’s Tainted Baby Food Products for the purpose of resale (the “New
`York Beech-Nut Purchaser Sub-Class”).
`
`5 In the alternative, Plaintiffs request certification of a class defined by all persons within the State
`of New York who purchased Hain’s Tainted Baby Food Products from the beginning of any
`applicable limitations period through the date of class certification, excluding the judge or
`magistrate assigned to this case, Hain, any entity in which Hain has a controlling interest, Hain’s
`officers, directors, legal representatives, successors, and assigns, and persons who purchased Hain’s
`Tainted Baby Food Products for the purpose of resale (the “New York Hain Purchaser Sub-
`Class”).
`
`
`
`- 20 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00870-DG-SJB Document 1 Filed 02/17/21 Page 21 of 53 PageID #: 21
`
`
`
`assigns, and persons who purchased Gerber’s Tainted Baby Food Products for the purpose of
`
`resale (the “National Gerber Purchaser Class”); 6
`
`50.
`
`All persons within the United States who purchased Plum’s Tainted Baby Food
`
`Products from the beginning of any applicable limitations period through the date of class
`
`certification, excluding the judge or magistrate assigned to this case, Plum, any entity in which Plum
`
`has a controlling interest, Plum’s officers, directors, legal representatives, successors, and assigns,
`
`and persons who purchased Plum’s Tainted Baby Food Products for the purpose of resale (the
`
`“National Plum Purchaser Class”); 7
`
`51.
`
`All persons within the United States who purchased Nurture’s Tainted Baby Food
`
`Products from the beginning of any applicable limitations period through the date of class
`
`certification, excluding the judge or magistrate assigned to this case, Nurture, any entity in which
`
`Nurture has a controlling interest, Nurture’s officers, directors, legal representatives, successors,
`
`
`
` 6
`
` In the alternative, Plaintiffs request certification of a class defined by all persons within the State
`of New York who purchased Gerber’s Tainted Baby Food Products from the beginning of any
`applicable limitations period through the date of class certification, excluding the judge or
`magistrate assigned to this case, Gerber, any entity in which Gerber has a controlling interest,
`Gerber’s officers, directors, legal representatives, successors, and assigns, and persons who
`purchased Gerber’s Tainted Baby Food Products for the purpose of resale (the “New York
`Gerber Purchaser Sub-Class”).
`
`7 In the alternative, Plaintiffs request certification of a class defined by all persons within the State
`of New York who purchased Plum’s Tainted Baby Food Products from the beginning of any
`applicable limitations period through the date of class certification, excluding the judge or
`magistrate assigned to this case, Plum, any entity in which Plum has a controlling interest, Plum’s
`officers, directors, legal representatives, successors, and assigns, and persons who purchased
`Plum’s Tainted Baby Food Products for the purpose of resale (the “New York Plum Purchaser
`Sub-Class”).
`
`
`
`- 21 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00870-DG-SJB Document 1 Filed 02/17/21 Page 22 of 53 PageID #: 22
`
`
`
`and assigns, and persons who purchased Nurture’s Tainted Baby Food Products for the purpose
`
`of resale (the “National Nurture Purchaser Class”); 8
`
`52.
`
`All persons within the United States who consumed Beech-Nut’s Tainted Baby
`
`Food Products from the beginning of any applicable limitations period through the date of class
`
`certification, excluding the judge or magistrate assigned to this case, Beech-Nut, any entity in which
`
`Beech-Nut has a controlling interest, and Beech-Nut’s officers, directors, legal representatives,
`
`successors, and assigns (the “National Beech-Nut Child Class”); 9
`
`53.
`
`All persons within the United States who consumed Hain’s Tainted Baby Food
`
`Products from the beginning of any applicable limitations period through the date of class
`
`certification, excluding the judge or magistrate assigned to this case, Hain, any entity in which Hain
`
`has a controlling interest, and Hain’s officers, directors, legal representatives, successors, and
`
`assigns (the “National Hain Child Class”); 10
`
`
`
` 8
`
` In the alternative, Plaintiffs request certification of a class defined by all persons within the State
`of New York who purchased Nurture’s Tainted Baby Food Products from the beginning of any
`app