Case 1:21-cv-10858-JSR Document 1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 1 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`REESE LLP
`Michael R. Reese
`100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
`New York, New York 10025
`Telephone: (212) 643-0500
`Email: mreese@reesellp.com
`
`REESE LLP
`Charles D. Moore (to be admitted to S.D.N.Y. bar)
`100 South 5th Street, Suite 1900
`Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
`Telephone: 212-643-0500
`Fax: 212-253-4272
`Email: cmoore@reesellp.com
`
`
`
`QUAT LAW OFFICES
`Kenneth D. Quat (to be admitted pro hac vice)
`373 Winch Street
`Framingham, Massachusetts 01701
`Telephone: (508) 872-1261
`Email: ken@quatlaw.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`________________________________________
`
`
`WILLIAM RANDOLPH,
`individually and on behalf of a class of
`similarly situated persons,
`
`
`
`Case No. 21-cv-10858
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-10858-JSR Document 1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 2 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff brings suit on behalf of himself and all persons similarly situated who purchased
`
`one or more packages of “Stoned Wheat Thins” (the “Product”)1 in any of its three varieties. The
`
`Product is manufactured by Defendant and sold under the brand name “Red Oval Farms.”
`
`Defendant’s branding and labeling of the Product conveys a message to consumers that is
`
`deceptive and misleading in that it conveys that the main ingredient of the Product of
`
`stoneground whole wheat flour. This is untrue, as the main ingredient is, in fact, inferior,
`
`unbleached enriched flour (a.k.a. “white flour”). Plaintiffs and all class members were harmed by
`
`paying more to purchase the Product than they would have been willing to pay had it not been
`
`misrepresented by Defendant.
`
`PARTIES
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff William Randolph is an individual who resides in Manhattan, New York.
`
`Plaintiff bought Stoned Wheat Thins, Mini Stoned Wheat Thins, and Stoned Wheat Thins Low
`
`Sodium from various retail stores on the Upper West Side on a bi-monthly basis from the beginning
`
`of the Class Period to 2019, believing that the main ingredient of the Product was stoneground
`
`whole wheat flour. Had Plaintiff known the truth that the main ingredient was not stone ground
`
`wheat flour (but rather, unbleached enriched flour, a.k.a. “white flour”) he would not have bought
`
`the Product.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant Mondelez International, Inc, is incorporated under the laws of the State
`
`of Virginia, with a principal place of business located at 905 West Fulton Market, Suite 200,
`
`Chicago, Illinois 60607.
`
`
`1 The Product is a snack cracker that is distributed and sold throughout the United States in three
`varieties – “Stoned Wheat Thins,” “Mini Stoned Wheat Thins,” and “Stoned Wheat Thins Low
`Sodium.” The three varieties are collectively referred to as “The Product”.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-10858-JSR Document 1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 3 of 17
`
`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`3.
`
`The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(2)(A),
`
`the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), as the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of
`
`$5,000,000 (five million dollars) exclusive of interest and costs, and at least one member of the
`
`putative class is a citizen of a state different from Defendant. None of the exceptions of 28
`
`U.S.C. §1332(d) are applicable.
`
`4.
`
`This court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because it conducts and
`
`transacts business within New York, and contracts to supply and supplies products within New
`
`York, including the Products.
`
`5.
`
`Venue is proper because Plaintiff and many class members reside in this District,
`
`Defendants do business in this District and in New York, and a substantial part of events and
`
`omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this District.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`A. Stoneground flour has superior health benefits compared to industrially-milled
`flour.
`
`
`
`6.
`
`Stone grinding is a traditional method of producing flour that has been shown to
`
`have a higher nutritional value than flour produced by modern industrial methods (typically, steel
`
`roller-mills that process grain rapidly at high temperatures). Stone grinding “employs a pair of
`
`ridged stones to crush and grind grains slowly, without creating heat that can destroy nutrients.
`
`The ground flour is sifted to catch larger particles of bran and germ, which are then ground again
`
`and mixed with the rest of the flour to produce a more nutritious flour.”2
`
`
`2 https://www.lehvoss-nutrition.com/news/industry-news.html?resource=/assets/food-
`guide/flour/~default.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-10858-JSR Document 1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 4 of 17
`
`
`
`7.
`
`Indeed, “[o]nly whole grain stone-ground flour is sure to contain the grain
`
`components in their original proportions and to include the germ. The way the stones grind
`
`distributes the germ oil evenly and without exposing it to excess heat, so rancidity does not
`
`develop as quickly as it would were it ground by steel roller-mills.”3
`
`8.
`
`As this authority further explains:
`
`There are several advantages to stone-ground wheat flour. The endosperm,
`bran, and germ remain in their natural, original proportions. Because the
`stones grind slowly, the wheat germ is not exposed to excessive temperatures.
`Heat causes the fat from the germ portion to oxidize and become rancid and
`much of the vitamins to be destroyed (Aubert, 1989). Since only a small
`amount of grain is ground at once, the fat from the germ is well distributed
`which also minimizes spoilage (Mount, 1975). Nutritive losses due to oxygen
`exposure are also limited by the fact that stone-ground flour is usually coarser
`(Thomas, 1976). As expressed in The Bread Book (Leonard, 1990), stone-
`ground flour is preferred by many bakers and natural food advocates because
`of its texture, its sweet and nutty flavour, and the beliefs that it is nutritionally
`superior and has a better baking quality than steel-roller-milled flour. Moritz
`and Jones (1950) and Schultz et al. (1942) showed that stone-milled flour was
`relatively high in thiamin, compared to roller-milled flour, especially when
`from hard wheat.
`
`Id.
`
`
`
`9.
`
`And another authority contrasts stone-grinding and industrial milling as follows:
`
`Industrial mills produce white flour and then process it (add germ and bran
`back in again) to produce whole grain flour on demand. In this process there
`is no way to guarantee that whole grain flour is actually whole grain. Because
`stone mills produce whole grain flour, the ground endosperm (the white bit)
`has the benefit of being ground alongside the oily germ during the whole
`process. The ground endosperm thus absorbs some of the oils and nutrients of
`the germ. Because industrial mills begin removing the germ and the bran at
`the beginning of the process, the ground endosperm has less opportunity to
`mingle with the oily germ and, thus, absorbs little of the nutrients contained in
`it.4
`
`10.
`
`Another commentator observes: “In stone ground, whole-grain products, phenolic
`
`compounds are found in high quantities because the bran is fully incorporated into the flour from
`
`
`3 http://www.eap.mcgill.ca/publications/EAP35.htm.
`4 https://www.virtuousbread.com/bread-and-baking/if-you-must-eat-white-bread-at-least-buy-
`good-flour/.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-10858-JSR Document 1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 5 of 17
`
`
`
`the beginning of the process. In commercially produced grains, the phenolic compounds varied
`
`with the grain and the amount of bran within each product.”5
`
`B. Consumers accurately perceive stoneground wheat flour as healthier than
`conventionally milled wheat flour and are willing to pay more for it.
`
`
`
`11.
`
`In recent years the market for stoneground wheat flour products has expanded
`
`rapidly as a result of the growing public demand for foods perceived as healthier, more
`
`nutritious, and more natural, in particular foods made with whole grains. As one commentator
`
`states:
`
`
`
`[The] stoneground wheat market has become popular because of the buyer
`interest for the healthful entire grain flour since supplements and nutrients are
`normally lost in the roller processing. The development of the stoneground wheat
`market is credited to the ascent in wellbeing cognizance among customers and
`furthermore because of the interest for items which are created by regular cycles.6
`
`12.
`
`It is well-established that consumers are willing to, and do, pay more to purchase
`
`foods believed to be healthy.7 With respect to stoneground wheat flour in particular, it has been
`
`observed that “[f]or millions of consumers, it's worth paying a premium to buy baked goods
`
`made from this elemental flour, ground on stone as it has been for thousands of years.”8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5 Ceclia T. Crine, Michael H. Tunick, & Rosemary E. Trout, The chemical and attitudinal differ-
`ences between commercial and artisanal products, NPJ SCIENCE OF FOOD (2019), available at
`https://www.nature.com/articles/s41538-019-0053-9.
`6 https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/stonground-wheat-market.html.
`7 See, e.g., Neilsen’s 2015 Global Health & Wellness Survey (“88% of those polled are willing to
`pay more for healthier foods”).
`8 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-03-13-stone-ground-flour_x.htm
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-10858-JSR Document 1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 6 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`C. The labeling of the Product conveys to reasonable consumers that a main
`ingredient is stoneground wheat flour, a message that is false.
`
`13.
`
`The Product is a snack cracker that is distributed and sold throughout the United
`
`States in three varieties – “Stoned Wheat Thins,” “Mini Stoned Wheat Thins,” and “Stoned
`
`Wheat Thins Low Sodium.” The “Stoned Wheat Thins” package is shown here:
`
`14.
`
`The “Mini Stoned Wheat Thins” package is shown here:
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-10858-JSR Document 1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 7 of 17
`
`
`
`15.
`
`The “Stoned Wheat Thins Low Sodium” package is shown here:
`
`
`
`16.
`
`The Product’s name, “Stoned Wheat Thins” – which is depicted in bold white
`
`print against a contrasting red background - conveys to reasonable consumers that the Product
`
`contains stoneground whole wheat flour. The accompanying graphics of a wheat field under a
`
`blue sky reinforce the message of a wholesome, natural product.
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiffs conducted a consumer survey in which 828 consumers were shown the
`
`image depicted in paragraph 13, above, and were asked to select – based on the Product’s
`
`packaging – the three main ingredients of the Product. The choices provided were the Product
`
`ingredients set forth in Defendant’s ingredients list with the addition of stoneground wheat flour.
`
`A substantial majority of respondents – 80.1% - selected “stoneground wheat flour” as one of the
`
`three main ingredients in the Product, the highest percentage for all of the ingredients listed, and
`
`62.9% of them indicated this factor would make them more likely to purchase the Product. See
`
`Ex. A.
`
`18.
`
`Unfortunately for consumers, the main ingredients in the Products is not
`
`stoneground whole wheat flour. Instead, it is unbleached enriched flour (a.k.a. “white flour”).
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-10858-JSR Document 1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 8 of 17
`
`
`
`D. Consumers accurately perceive whole wheat flour as healthier than regular
`wheat flour and are willing to pay more for it.
`
`19.
`
`A recent survey found that 64% of Gen Z and Millennial consumers, 67% of
`
`parents of young children, and 74% of health-conscious consumers choose whole grain products
`
`at least half of the time.9
`
`20.
`
`The widespread consumer preference for whole grain products is justified by the
`
`science. Whole grains “contain all the essential parts and naturally-occurring nutrients of the
`
`entire grain seed in their original proportions . . .”10 Thus, it is well-accepted that whole grain
`
`products are healthier than products where the grain has been processed to remove some of the
`
`kernel and/or nutrients. As the Mayo Clinic states: “whole grains [are] the healthiest kinds of
`
`grains [and] in particular are an important part of a healthy diet . . [they] are linked to a lower
`
`risk of heart disease, diabetes, certain cancers and other health problems.”11 Thus, “[t]he Dietary
`
`Guidelines for Americans recommends that at least half of all the grains you eat are whole
`
`grains.” Id.
`
`21.
`
`A major health benefit of whole grain is its fiber content: “[d]ietary fiber . . .
`
`help[s] to maintain a healthy weight and lower[s] your risk of diabetes, heart disease and some
`
`types of cancer.” Id.
`
`E. The labeling of the Product conveys to reasonable consumers that a main
`ingredient is whole wheat flour, a message that is false.
`
`
`22.
`
`As described above, stoneground wheat flour is a whole wheat flour. In the survey
`
`cited above, consumers were asked to select the Product’s three main ingredients, with “whole
`
`wheat flour” being one of the selections in addition to the ingredients stated in Defendant’s
`
`
`9 https://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Article/2021/07/29/Whole-grains-consumption-on-the-
`rise-reports-Oldways-Whole-Grains-Council#.
`10 https://wholegrainscouncil.org/definition-whole-grain.
`11 https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/whole-
`grains/art-20047826.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-10858-JSR Document 1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 9 of 17
`
`
`
`ingredients list. Nearly two-thirds of respondents (64.8%) selected “whole wheat flour” as one of
`
`the three main ingredients, the highest percentage for any of the ingredients listed, and 78.1% of
`
`them indicated this factor would make them more likely to purchase the Product.
`
`F. Defendant’s labeling is false, deceptive, and misleading and causes economic
` harm to consumers
`
`23.
`
`As set forth above, Defendant’s labeling of the Product is designed to – and does -
`
`deceive, mislead, and defraud consumers.
`
`24.
`
`Defendant’s false, deceptive, and misleading labeling of the Product has enabled
`
`Defendant to sell more Products than it would have in the absence of this misconduct, resulting
`
`in additional profits at the expense of consumers. As has been observed, “for many big
`
`companies, stone-ground is just a marketing phrase.”12 This appears true of Defendant.
`
`25.
`
`As an immediate, direct, and proximate result of Defendant’s false, misleading,
`
`and deceptive representations and omissions, Defendant injured Plaintiff and the Class members
`
`in that they:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`Paid a sum of money for the Product, which was not what Defendant
`represented;
`
`Paid a premium price for the Product, which was not what Defendant
`represented;
`
`Were deprived of the benefit of the bargain because the Product they
`purchased was different from what Defendant represented;
`
`Were deprived of the benefit of the bargain because the Product they
`purchased had less value than what Defendant represented;
`
`Could not be used for the purpose for which they were purchased; and
`
`Were of a different quality than what Defendant promised.
`
`
`12 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-03-13-stone-ground-flour_x.htm See also
`https://flour.com/whole-wheat-fact-sheet/ (noting “stoneground” is a term “often used for mar-
`keting and promotional advantages”).
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-10858-JSR Document 1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 10 of 17
`
`
`
`26.
`
`The Product costs more than similar products that are not unlawfully labeled and,
`
`conversely, the Product would have cost less if labeled accurately.
`
`27.
`
`Because of Defendant’s false, deceptive, and misleading labeling, the Product is
`
`worth less than what Plaintiff and class members paid to purchase it.
`
`28.
`
`Had Defendant not made the false, misleading, and deceptive representations and
`
`omissions, Plaintiff and the Class members would not have been willing to pay the same amount
`
`for the Product they purchased, and/or Plaintiff and the Class members would not have been
`
`willing to purchase the Product at all.
`
`29.
`
`Plaintiff and the Class members paid for a Product that contained stone ground
`
`wheat flour and/or whole wheat flour, but received Products that contain either. The Products
`
`Plaintiff and the Class members received were worth less than the Products for which they paid.
`
`30.
`
`Based on Defendant’s misleading and deceptive representations, Defendant was
`
`able to, and did, charge a premium price for the Product over the cost of competitive products
`
`not bearing the label and/or containing stone ground and/or whole wheat flour.
`
`31.
`
`Plaintiff and the Class members all paid money for the Product. However,
`
`Plaintiff and the Class members did not obtain the full value of the advertised Product due to
`
`Defendant’s misrepresentations and omissions. Plaintiff and the Class members purchased and/or
`
`paid more for, the Product than they would have had they known the truth about the Product.
`
`Consequently, Plaintiff and the Class members have suffered injury in fact and lost money as a
`
`result of Defendant’s wrongful conduct.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-10858-JSR Document 1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 11 of 17
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`
`32.
`
`Plaintiff brings this case as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) on behalf of himself and proposed classes. The Class is defined as
`
`follows:
`
`All consumers who purchased the Product within New York within six years of the filing
`
`of this Complaint. (“Class”)
`
`33.
`
`There are likely tens of thousands of class members in the class. The class is sufficiently
`
`numerous such that joinder is impracticable.
`
`34.
`
`There are issues of law and fact common to each class, which common issues
`
`predominate over any issues specific to individual class members. The principal common issues are:
`
`whether the Product has been sold to consumers with the alleged labeling; whether Defendant’s
`
`conduct constitutes the violations of law alleged herein; whether Defendant acted willfully,
`
`recklessly, negligently, or with gross negligence in committing the violations of law alleged
`
`herein; whether Plaintiff and class members are entitled to the relief requested. All class
`
`members were subjected to the same unlawful conduct, as they all saw the same labeling of the
`
`Product and all purchased the Product.
`
`35.
`
`Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of class members. Plaintiff and all class
`
`members purchased food items that, for all intents and purposes, were identically labeled so as to
`
`mislead, deceive, and defraud consumers. All claims are based on the same legal theories, and all
`
`arise from the same course of conduct.
`
`36.
`
`Plaintiff will adequately and fairly protect the interests of all class members. Plaintiff is
`
`committed to a vigorous and successful prosecution of this action, is familiar with the legal and factual
`
`issues involved, and has retained counsel experienced in the litigation of false labeling and false
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-10858-JSR Document 1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 12 of 17
`
`
`
`advertising cases, including cases making claims similar to those asserted here. Neither Plaintiff nor
`
`counsel have any interest or conflict that might cause them to not vigorously pursue this action.
`
`37.
`
`A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient
`
`adjudication of this controversy, since: (a) the economic harm suffered by any individual class
`
`member is likely not substantial, hence the expense and burden of individual litigation would be
`
`economically unfeasible; and (b) the prosecution of separate lawsuits by individual class
`
`members would entail the risk of inconsistent and conflicting adjudications that could establish
`
`conflicting standards of conduct for Defendant; and (c) there will be no unusual or extraordinary
`
`management difficulties in administering this case as a class action.
`
`38.
`
`Defendant has acted on grounds generally applicable to the class with respect to
`
`the matters alleged herein, thereby making the relief sought appropriate with respect to the class
`
`as a whole.
`
`CAUSES OF ACTION
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`VIOLATION OF NEW YORK GBL § 349
`(On Behalf of Plaintiff and Other Class Members)
`
`39.
`
`Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in the paragraphs above and
`
`incorporates such allegations by reference herein.
`
`40.
`
`New York General Business Law Section 349 (“GBL § 349”) declares unlawful
`
`“[d]eceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade, or commerce or in the
`
`furnishing of any service in this state . . .”
`
`41.
`
`The conduct of Defendant alleged herein constitutes recurring, “unlawful”
`
`deceptive acts and practices in violation of GBL § 349, and as such, Plaintiff and the other Class
`
`Members seek monetary damages.
`
`42.
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-10858-JSR Document 1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 13 of 17
`
`
`
`43.
`
`Defendant misleadingly, inaccurately, and deceptively represents the Product to
`
`consumers.
`
`44.
`
`Defendant’s improper consumer-oriented conduct is misleading in a material way
`
`in that it, inter alia, induced Plaintiff and other Class Members to purchase and/or pay a
`
`premium for Defendant’s Product and purchase the Product when they otherwise would not
`
`have.
`
`45.
`
`Defendant made its untrue or misleading statements and representations willfully,
`
`wantonly, and with reckless disregard for the truth.
`
`46.
`
`Plaintiff and other Class Members have been injured inasmuch as they paid a
`
`premium for services. Accordingly, Plaintiff and other Class Members paid more than what they
`
`bargained or received.
`
`47.
`
`Defendant’s deceptive and misleading practices constitute a deceptive act and
`
`practice in the conduct of business in violation of New York General Business Law §349(a) and
`
`Plaintiff and other members of the Class have been damaged thereby.
`
`48.
`
`As a result of Defendants’ recurring deceptive acts and practices, Plaintiff and
`
`other Class Members are entitled to monetary and compensatory damages, restitution and
`
`disgorgement of all moneys obtained by means of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, interest, and
`
`attorneys’ fees and costs. This includes actual damages under GBL § 349, as well as statutory
`
`damages of $50 per unit of Product purchased.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-10858-JSR Document 1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 14 of 17
`
`
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`VIOLATION OF NEW YORK GBL § 350
`(On Behalf of Plaintiff and Other Class Members)
`
`49.
`
`Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in the paragraphs above and
`
`incorporates such allegations by reference herein.
`
`50.
`
`N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 350 provides, in part, as follows:
`
`False advertising in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in
`the furnishing of any service in this state is hereby declared unlawful.
`
`51.
`
`N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 350a(1) provides, in part, as follows:
`
`The term ‘false advertising, including labeling, of a commodity, or of the
`kind, character, terms or conditions of any employment opportunity if
`such advertising is misleading in a material respect. In determining
`whether any advertising is misleading, there shall be taken into account
`(among other things) not only representations made by statement, word,
`design, device, sound or any combination thereof, but also the extent to
`which the advertising fails to reveal facts material in the light of such
`representations with respect to the commodity or employment to which the
`advertising relates under the conditions proscribed in said advertisement,
`or under such conditions as are customary or usual . . .
`
`52.
`
`Defendant’s labeling and advertisements contain untrue and materially misleading
`
`statements concerning Defendant’s Product inasmuch as it misrepresents that main ingredient of
`
`the Product as being stoneground whole wheat flour.
`
`53.
`
`Plaintiff and other Class Members have been injured inasmuch as they relied upon
`
`the labeling and paid a premium for Products which, contrary to Defendant’s representations,
`
`were false and deceptive. Accordingly, Plaintiff and other Class Members paid more than what
`
`they bargained or received.
`
`54.
`
`Defendant’s labeling induced the Plaintiff and Class Members to buy Defendant’s
`
`Product.
`
`55.
`
`Defendant made the untrue and misleading statements and representations
`
`willfully, wantonly, and with reckless disregard for the truth.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-10858-JSR Document 1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 15 of 17
`
`
`
`56.
`
`Defendant made the material misrepresentations described in this Complaint on
`
`the packaging of the Product.
`
`57.
`
`Defendant’s material misrepresentations were substantially uniform in content,
`
`presentation, and impact upon consumers at large. Moreover, all consumers purchasing the
`
`Product were and continue to be exposed to Defendant’s material misrepresentations.
`
`58.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s recurring, acts and practices in violation of GBL § 350,
`
`Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to monetary and compensatory damages, injunctive
`
`relief, restitution of all moneys obtained by means of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, interest, and
`
`attorneys’ fees and costs as well as statutory damages of $500 per Product purchased.
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`UNJUST ENRICHMENT
`(On Behalf of Plaintiff and Other Class Members)
`
`
`
`59.
`
`Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in the paragraphs above and
`
`incorporates such allegations by reference herein.
`
`60.
`
`Plaintiff pleads this claim in the alternative.
`
`61.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s deceptive and misleading labeling, advertising,
`
`marketing, and sales of the Product, Defendant was enriched, at the expense of Plaintiff and the
`
`other Class members through the payment of the purchase price for Defendant’s Product.
`
`62. Under the circumstances, it would be against equity and good conscience to
`
`permit Defendant to retain the ill-gotten benefits that it received from Plaintiff and the other
`
`members in light of the fact that the Products purchased by Plaintiff and the other Class members
`
`were not what Defendant purported them to be. Thus, it would be unjust or inequitable for
`
`Defendant to retain the benefit without restitution to Plaintiff and the other Class members for
`
`the monies paid to Defendant for such Products.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-10858-JSR Document 1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 16 of 17
`
`
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the members of the Class request
`
`
`that this Honorable Court:
`
`(i)
`
`enter an order certifying the proposed Class under Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3), as set forth above;
`
`(ii)
`
`enter an order declaring that Defendant is financially responsible for notifying the
`
`Class members of the pendency of this suit;
`
`(iii)
`
`issue judgment declaring that Defendant has committed the violations of law
`
`alleged herein;
`
`(iv)
`
`issue judgment awarding statutory damages in the maximum amount for which
`
`the law provides;
`
`(v)
`
`issue judgment awarding monetary damages, including but not limited to any
`
`compensatory, incidental, statutory or consequential damages in an amount that the Court or jury
`
`will determine, in accordance with applicable law;
`
`(vi)
`
`issue judgment providing for any and all equitable monetary relief the Court
`
`deems appropriate;
`
`(vii)
`
`issue judgment awarding punitive or exemplary damages in accordance with
`
`proof and in an amount consistent with applicable precedent;
`
`(viii)
`
`issue judgment awarding Plaintiffs their reasonable costs and expenses of suit,
`
`including attorneys’ fees;
`
`(ix)
`
`issue judgment awarding pre- and post-judgment interest to the extent the law
`
`allows; and
`
`(x)
`
`ordering such further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-10858-JSR Document 1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 17 of 17
`
`
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`Plaintiff requests jury trial on all claims so triable.
`
`Date: December 17, 2021
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Michael R. Reese
`Michael R. Reese
`REESE LLP
`100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
`New York, New York 10025
`Telephone: (212) 643-0500
`Email: mreese@reesellp.com
`
`
`REESE LLP
`Charles D. Moore (to be admitted to S.D.N.Y. bar)
`100 South 5th Street, Suite 1900
`Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
`Telephone: 212-643-0500
`Fax: 212-253-4272
`Email: cmoore@reesellp.com
`
`QUAT LAW OFFICES
`Kenneth D. Quat (to be admitted pro hac vice)
`373 Winch Street
`Framingham, Massachusetts 01701
`Telephone: (508) 872-1261
`Email: ken@quatlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`