Case 2:20-cv-01154-WSS Document 1 Filed 07/31/20 Page 1 of 32
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
`
`RANDALL SULZER, individually, and on
`behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`THE KRAFT HEINZ COMPANY, and
`DOES 1-10, inclusive,
`Defendants.
`
`Case No.:
`
`2:20-cv-1154
`
`Filed Electronically
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff Randall Sulzer (“Plaintiff”), on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
`
`brings this class action against Defendant The Kraft Heinz Company (“Defendant”), based on
`
`Defendant’s false and deceptive advertising and labeling of their Maxwell House ground coffee
`
`products. Plaintiff makes the following allegations based on the investigation of his counsel and
`
`on information and belief, except as to allegations pertaining to Plaintiff individually, which are
`
`based on his personal knowledge.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`This case revolves around a straightforward and systemic course of false,
`
`misleading, and unlawful conduct: Defendant has grossly exaggerated the number of cups of
`
`coffee that certain varieties of Maxwell House ground coffee products (the “Products”)1 can make
`
`in order to induce consumer purchases and to charge consumers more for these products.
`
`2.
`
`Throughout the statute of limitations period, Defendant has sold the Products to
`
`consumers based on the representation that they contain enough ground coffee to make up to a
`
`1 “Products” are further defined and listed in Paragraphs 15 ,16 and 31.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01154-WSS Document 1 Filed 07/31/20 Page 2 of 32
`
`specific number of servings (e.g., “240 6 FL OZ CUPS”). However, by following Defendant’s
`
`own definitions and instructions, the Products do not contain nearly enough ground coffee to make
`
`the number of servings represented.
`
`3.
`
`Indeed, it is a classic and unlawful bait-and-switch scheme that causes unsuspecting
`
`consumers to spend more money for less than the advertised amount of coffee they believe they
`
`are purchasing.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff and other consumers purchased the Products because they reasonably
`
`believed—based on Defendant’s representations—that these Products contained enough coffee to
`
`make the specified number of servings. Had Plaintiff and other consumers known the truth (i.e.,
`
`that the Products do not contain enough coffee to make the specified number of servings), they
`
`would have paid less for them, or would not have purchased them at all. As a result, Plaintiff and
`
`other consumers have been deceived and have suffered economic injury.
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiff seeks relief in this action individually, and on behalf of all other similarly
`
`situated individuals who purchased Defendant’s falsely and deceptively labeled Products during
`
`the statute of limitations period, for violations of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and
`
`Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. §§ 201-1 et seq., California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act,
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq., California’s False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
`
`§ 17500, et seq., California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.,
`
`and for breach of express and implied warranty, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, unjust
`
`enrichment, and for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301, et seq.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`6.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act
`
`of 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2), because this is a class action filed under Rule 23 of the Federal
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01154-WSS Document 1 Filed 07/31/20 Page 3 of 32
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure, there are thousands of proposed Class members, the aggregate amount
`
`in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 exclusive of interest and costs, and Defendant is a citizen of a
`
`state different from at least some members of the proposed Classes, including Plaintiff.
`
`7.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant has
`
`sufficient minimum contacts in Pennsylvania, or otherwise intentionally avails itself of the markets
`
`within Pennsylvania, as Defendant maintains its co-headquarters and principal place of business
`
`in Pennsylvania, and it sells the Products in Pennsylvania to Pennsylvania consumers.
`
`8.
`
`Venue is proper in this judicial District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because
`
`Defendant maintains its principal place of business in this District and therefore resides in this
`
`District.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff Randall Sulzer resides in San Diego County, California. In or about June
`
`2020, Plaintiff purchased for his own personal benefit a canister of Maxwell House Master Blend
`
`Light, claiming that it “Makes Up To 210 cups” for approximately $8.50 before tax from Ralph’s
`
`Supermarket, a grocery store located in San Diego, California. In purchasing the Product, Plaintiff
`
`saw and relied on Defendant’s representations made on the packaging. Specifically, Plaintiff
`
`reasonably believed that the Products contained enough ground coffee to make 210 cups or
`
`servings of coffee because he saw the representation “MAKES UP TO 210 6 FL OZ CUPS”
`
`prominently printed on the front of each canister. In reliance on this representation, Plaintiff
`
`purchased the Maxwell House Master Blend Light.
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff’s reasonable belief that the Products he purchased could make the
`
`represented number of servings was an important factor in his decision to purchase the Product.
`
`Plaintiff would not have purchased the Product, or would not have paid as much as he did, had he
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01154-WSS Document 1 Filed 07/31/20 Page 4 of 32
`
`known that the Product did not contain enough ground coffee to make the represented number of
`
`cups of coffee. Therefore, Plaintiff suffered injury in fact and lost money as a result of Defendant’s
`
`misleading, false, unfair, and deceptive practices, as described herein. Plaintiff was also damaged
`
`in his purchase because Defendant’s false advertisement artificially inflated the price of the
`
`Product as a result of increased consumer demand generated by the false advertisement, which
`
`naturally led to an increase in the price charged.
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff is susceptible to this reoccurring harm because he cannot be certain that
`
`Defendant has corrected this deceptive and false advertising scheme, and he desires to continue to
`
`purchase Defendant’s Products when convenient. However, Despite being misled by Defendant
`
`with respect to the Products he purchased, Plaintiff lacks personal knowledge as to Defendant’s
`
`specific business practices relating to the Products. Consequently, there is still doubt in his mind
`
`as to the possibility that some of the Products could contain enough coffee to make the advertised
`
`number of servings. In short, Plaintiff cannot trust that Defendant will label and/or advertise its
`
`Products truthfully and in a non-misleading fashion in compliance with applicable laws. Plaintiff
`
`simply does not have the resources to ensure that Defendant is complying with applicable laws
`
`with respect to its labeling and advertising of the Products.
`
`12.
`
`Additionally, because of the breadth of Products involved in Defendant’s deceit (at
`
`least 38 varieties), and the likelihood that Defendant may yet develop and market additional
`
`products that misrepresent the serving yield, Plaintiff may again purchase a falsely-advertised
`
`product from Defendant under the mistaken impression that the represented number of servings is
`
`accurate. Indeed, Plaintiff regularly shops at stores where the Products are sold, and he would like
`
`to continue purchasing the Products in the future. Therefore, Plaintiff may purchase the Products
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01154-WSS Document 1 Filed 07/31/20 Page 5 of 32
`
`in the future. Moreover, Class members will continue to purchase the Products, reasonably but
`
`incorrectly believing that they contain enough coffee to make the advertised number of servings.
`
`13.
`
`Defendant The Kraft Heinz Company is a corporation organized and existing under
`
`the laws of the state of Delaware, with its principal place of business at One PPG Place, Pittsburgh,
`
`Pennsylvania 15222. Maxwell House was founded in 1892 and was named after its first customer,
`
`the prestigious Maxwell House Hotel in Nashville, Tennessee. According to the company’s early
`
`advertising, President Theodore Roosevelt drank a cup of coffee at the hotel in 1907 and declared
`
`it was “good to the last drop.” The company adopted this slogan and has remained a household
`
`name for over a century. Maxwell House generates millions of dollars in sales each year. General
`
`Foods acquired Maxwell House in 1928 and was acquired by Defendant in 1990 when Kraft
`
`merged with Philip Morris’ General Foods unit, which then merged with Heinz in 2015 to form a
`
`food conglomerate that generated nearly $25 billion in revenue in 2019.
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiff does not know the true names or capacities of the persons or entities sued
`
`herein as Does 1-10, inclusive, and therefore sues such defendants by such fictitious names.
`
`Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon such information and belief alleges, that each of the
`
`Doe defendants is, in some manner, legally responsible for the damages suffered by Plaintiff and
`
`the Class Members as alleged herein. Plaintiff will amend his Complaint to set forth the true names
`
`and capacities of these defendants when they have been ascertained, along with appropriate
`
`charging allegations, as may be necessary.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`A.
`
`The Products At Issue
`
`15.
`
`The products at issue in this case consist of all varieties (e.g., different types of
`
`roasts) and sizes (e.g., 11.5 oz., 30.6 oz., etc.) of Maxwell House ground coffee canisters, tins, and
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01154-WSS Document 1 Filed 07/31/20 Page 6 of 32
`
`bricks which make a specific servings representation on the front label (e.g., “MAKES UP TO 90
`
`6 FL CUPS”).
`
`16.
`
`These Products include, but are not limited to, the following varieties of Maxwell
`
`House ground coffee canisters, tins, and bricks: Original Roast, Original Roast Decaf, Half Caff,
`
`Smooth Bold, Dark Roast, Hazelnut, Vanilla, Master Blend, Morning Boost, 100% Colombian,
`
`Wake Up Roast, Breakfast Blend, House Blend, French Roast, Gourmet Roast, Intense Bold, and
`
`Light Roast.
`
`17.
`
`The Products are sold across the United States through third party retailers
`
`including grocery chains and large retail outlets.
`
`B.
`
`Defendant Grossly Overstates The Number Of Servings The Products Can Make
`
`18.
`
`Defendant represents on the packaging of each of the Products that they contain
`
`enough ground coffee to make up to a specified number of servings. For example, Defendant
`
`prominently state on the front packaging of the Maxwell House 100% Colombian Roast, 10.5 oz
`
`product: “MAKES UP TO 90 6 FL OZ CUPS.”
`
`19.
`
`Representative images of the front packaging of some of the Products are depicted
`
`below:
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01154-WSS Document 1 Filed 07/31/20 Page 7 of 32
`
`
`Defendant places a materially identical representation on the front label of all the
`
`20.
`
`Products, although the number of represented servings of course varies based on the size of the
`
`Product.
`
`21.
`
`On “Brewing Instructions” on the back label of all the Products, Defendant instructs
`
`consumers to use 1 tablespoon of ground coffee to make 1 serving/cup of coffee.2
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`One tablespoon of Maxwell House ground coffee weighs approximately 5 grams.
`
`Based on these standard measurements, it is evident that Defendant grossly
`
`overstates the number of servings the Products can make.
`
`24.
`
`By way of example, as depicted above, Defendant represents on the 10.5 oz tin of
`
`the Maxwell House 100% Colombian product that it “MAKES UP TO 90 6 FL OZ CUPS.”
`
`
`2 Hereinafter, the term “cup” is synonymous, and used interchangeably with, the term “serving.”
`Moreover, the term “cup” or “serving” is equivalent to 6 fluid ounces, based on Defendant’s
`representations.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01154-WSS Document 1 Filed 07/31/20 Page 8 of 32
`
`25.
`
`As set forth above, 1 tablespoon of ground coffee is needed to make 1 serving/cup.
`
`Therefore, 90 tablespoons of ground coffee are needed to make 90 servings/cups.
`
`26.
`
`As set forth above, one tablespoon of Maxwell House’s ground coffee weighs
`
`approximately 5 grams. Therefore, 450 grams of ground coffee are needed to make the promised
`
`90 servings [90 tablespoons x 5 grams].
`
`27.
`
`However, the 10.5 oz tin has a net weight of 297 grams. Therefore, it contains only
`
`66% of the amount of ground coffee required to make up to 90 cups of coffee [(297 / 450) x 100%].
`
`This is equivalent to approximately 59 cups of coffee.
`
`28.
`
`The same shortfall (i.e., only 59 cups of coffee) is calculated by dividing the total
`
`grams of coffee in the 10.5 oz. tin by the number of grams required to make a single serving
`
`[297 grams / 5 grams].
`
`29.
`
`In sum, the 10.5 oz. tin only contains enough coffee to make 59 cups, which is
`
`equivalent to 66% of the amount of ground coffee that is required to make the 90 cups of coffee:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`297 grams / 450 grams = 66%
`
`59 cups / 90 cups = 66%
`
`30.
`
`Thus, it is impossible for the Maxwell House 100% Colombian product to contain
`
`enough ground coffee to make anywhere close to 90 cups of coffee. Defendant’s representation
`
`that the 10.5 oz. tin “MAKES UP TO 90 6 FL OZ CUPS” is therefore false, deceptive, and
`
`misleading.
`
`31.
`
`The same calculations apply equally to all of the other Products. According to their
`
`net weight, as well as the weight per tablespoon of ground coffee, they are unable to make
`
`anywhere close to the represented number of cups. These approximate calculations are set forth in
`
`the following chart:
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01154-WSS Document 1 Filed 07/31/20 Page 9 of 32
`
`Product Name
`
`Original Roast
`Original Roast
`(brick)
`Original Roast
`Original Roast
`Original Roast
`Original Roast
`Original Roast
`Decaf
`Original Roast
`Decaf (brick)
`Original Roast
`Decaf
`Original Roast
`Decaf
`Half Caff
`Half Caff
`(brick)
`Half Caff
`Smooth Bold
`Dark Roast
`Dark Roast
`(brick)
`Dark Roast
`Hazelnut
`Vanilla
`Master Blend
`(brick)
`Master Blend
`Master Blend
`Morning Boost
`Morning Boost
`100%
`Colombian
`(brick)
`100%
`Colombian
`
`Net
`Weight
`(oz)
`
`11.5 oz.
`11.5 oz.
`
`23 oz
`30.6 oz
`42.5 oz
`48 oz
`11 oz
`
`11 oz
`
`22 oz
`
`29.3 oz
`
`11 oz
`11 oz
`
`25.6 oz
`11.5 oz
`10.5 oz
`10.5 oz
`
`24.5 oz
`11 oz
`11 oz
`11.5 oz.
`
`11.5 oz.
`26.8 oz
`11.5 oz
`26.7 oz
`10.5 oz
`
`Net
`Weight
`(g)
`
`326g
`326g
`
`652g
`869g
`1200g
`1360g
`311g
`
`311g
`
`623g
`
`830g
`
`311g
`311g
`
`726g
`326g
`297g
`297g
`
`694g
`311g
`311g
`326g
`
`326g
`760g
`326g
`759g
`297g
`
`10.5 oz
`
`297g
`
`Number of
`“Up To”
`Servings
`Promised
`90
`90
`
`Approximate
`Number of
`Servings
`Received
`65
`65
`
`Approximate
`Percentage of
`Servings
`Received
`72%
`72%
`
`130
`174
`240
`272
`62
`
`62
`
`125
`
`166
`
`62
`62
`
`145
`65
`59
`59
`
`139
`62
`62
`65
`
`65
`152
`65
`152
`59
`
`59
`
`72%
`73%
`74%
`72%
`69%
`
`69%
`
`69%
`
`69%
`
`69%
`69%
`
`69%
`72%
`66%
`66%
`
`66%
`69%
`69%
`72%
`
`72%
`72%
`72%
`72%
`66%
`
`66%
`
`180
`240
`325
`380
`90
`
`90
`
`180
`
`240
`
`90
`90
`
`210
`90
`90
`90
`
`210
`90
`90
`90
`
`90
`210
`90
`210
`90
`
`90
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01154-WSS Document 1 Filed 07/31/20 Page 10 of 32
`
`Product Name
`
`Net
`Weight
`(oz)
`
`Net
`Weight
`(g)
`
`Wake Up Roast
`Wake Up Roast
`Breakfast Blend
`Breakfast Blend
`(brick)
`Breakfast Blend
`House Blend
`French Roast
`(brick)
`French Roast
`Gourmet Roast
`Gourmet Roast
`(brick)
`Intense Bold
`Light Roast
`
`11.5 oz
`30.65 oz
`11 oz
`11 oz
`
`29.3 oz
`10.5 oz
`11 oz
`
`11 oz
`25.6 oz
`11 oz
`
`11.5 oz
`11.5 oz
`
`326g
`869g
`311g
`311g
`
`830g
`297g
`311g
`
`311g
`726g
`311g
`
`326g
`326g
`
`Number of
`“Up To”
`Servings
`Promised
`90
`240
`90
`90
`
`Approximate
`Number of
`Servings
`Received
`65
`174
`62
`62
`
`Approximate
`Percentage of
`Servings
`Received
`72%
`73%
`69%
`69%
`
`240
`90
`90
`
`90
`210
`90
`
`90
`90
`
`166
`59
`62
`
`62
`145
`62
`
`65
`65
`
`69%
`66%
`69%
`
`69%
`69%
`69%
`
`72%
`72%
`
`32.
`
`There are 38 varieties of the Products listed in the chart above. Each and every one
`
`of them contains substantially less ground coffee than is required to make the recommended
`
`number of “up to” servings promised on the packaging. On average, these Products contain enough
`
`ground coffee to make only 70% of the number of servings promised on the packaging, thus
`
`revealing a systematic course of unlawful conduct by Defendant to deceive and shortchange
`
`consumers.
`
`C.
`
`The False And Deceptive Serving Amount Representation Harms Consumers
`
`33.
`
`Plaintiff and other consumers purchased the Products relying on Defendant’s
`
`serving amount representations on the Products’ packaging.
`
`34.
`
`Plaintiff and other consumers reasonably expect that, if they follow the serving
`
`instructions, the Products will produce the number of servings/cups of coffee as represented on the
`
`Products’ packaging.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01154-WSS Document 1 Filed 07/31/20 Page 11 of 32
`
`35.
`
`Plaintiff’s and consumer’s reasonable belief that the Products are able to make up
`
`to the represented number of cups of coffee was a significant factor in each of their decisions to
`
`purchase the Products.
`
`36.
`
`Plaintiff’s and Class members did not know, and had no reason to know, that the
`
`Products’ labeling vastly overstates the number of cups of coffee they are able to make. At the
`
`time of purchase, a reasonable consumer cannot measure or calculate how many servings the
`
`Products can make. Nor are reasonable consumers expected to keep track of the precise number of
`
`cups of coffee they make over a period of time.
`
`37.
`
`As the entity responsible for the development, manufacturing, packaging,
`
`advertising, distribution and sale of the Products, Defendant knew or should have known that each
`
`of the Products falsely and deceptively overstates the number of servings of coffee that can be
`
`made.
`
`38.
`
`Defendant also knew or should have known that Plaintiff and other consumers, in
`
`purchasing the Products, would rely on Defendant’s serving size representations. Nonetheless,
`
`Defendant deceptively advertises the Products in order to deceive consumers into believing they
`
`are getting considerably more coffee than they are paying for.
`
`39.
`
`Consumers are willing to pay more for the Products based on the belief that the
`
`Products contain enough ground coffee to make up to the represented number of servings. Plaintiff
`
`and other consumers would have paid significantly less for the Products, or would not have
`
`purchased them at all, had they known that they were getting fewer servings of coffee than what
`
`they were promised.
`
`40.
`
`By analogy, if a consumer purchased a six-pack of soda, but only received four
`
`cans of soda, the consumer would only be receiving 66.67% of what she paid for. The situation
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01154-WSS Document 1 Filed 07/31/20 Page 12 of 32
`
`here is no different in terms of the harm to the consumer. The only difference is that, due to the
`
`nature of the Products, Defendant is able to conceal the gross shortfall of coffee because reasonable
`
`consumers do not keep track of the number of cups of coffee they make over a period of time.
`
`41.
`
`Therefore, Plaintiff and other consumers purchasing the Products have suffered
`
`injury in fact and lost money as a result of Defendant’s false and deceptive practices, as described
`
`herein.
`
`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`
`42.
`
`Plaintiff brings this class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and all other
`
`applicable laws and rules, individually, and on behalf of all members of the following Classes:
`
`Nationwide Class
`
`All persons who purchased any of the Products in the United States within the
`applicable statute of limitations period.
`
`California Subclass
`
`All persons who purchased any of the Products in the state of California within the
`applicable statute of limitations period.
`
`California Consumer Subclass
`
`All persons who purchased any of the Products in the state of California for
`personal, household, or family purposes, within the applicable statute of limitations
`period.
`
`43.
`
`Excluded from the Classes are the following individuals and/or entities: Defendant
`
`and its parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers and directors, current or former employees, and any
`
`entity in which Defendant has a controlling interest; all individuals who make a timely election to
`
`be excluded from this proceeding using the correct protocol for opting out; and all judges assigned
`
`to hear any aspect of this litigation, as well as their immediate family members.
`
`44.
`
`Plaintiff reserves the right to modify or amend the definition of the proposed
`
`Classes before the Court determines whether certification is appropriate.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01154-WSS Document 1 Filed 07/31/20 Page 13 of 32
`
`45.
`
`46.
`
`Plaintiff is a member of the Classes.
`
`Numerosity: The proposed Classes are so numerous that joinder of all members
`
`would be impractical. The Products are sold throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and
`
`the United States, by third-party retailers. The number of individuals who purchased the Products
`
`during the relevant time period is at least in the thousands. Accordingly, Class members are so
`
`numerous that their individual joinder herein is impractical. While the precise number of Class
`
`members and their identities are unknown to Plaintiffs at this time, these Class members are
`
`identifiable and ascertainable.
`
`47.
`
`Common Questions Predominate: There are questions of law and fact common to
`
`the proposed Classes that will drive the resolution of this action and will predominate over
`
`questions affecting only individual Class members. These questions include, but are not limited
`
`to, the following:
`
`a.
`
`Whether Defendant misrepresented material facts and/or failed to disclose
`
`material facts in connection with the packaging, marketing, distribution, and sale of the
`
`Products;
`
`b.
`
`Whether Defendant’s use of false or deceptive packaging and advertising
`
`constituted false or deceptive advertising;
`
`c.
`
`Whether Defendant engaged in unfair, unlawful and/or fraudulent business
`
`practices;
`
`d.
`
`Whether Defendant’s unlawful conduct, as alleged herein, was intentional
`
`and knowing;
`
`e.
`
`Whether Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to damages and/or restitution,
`
`and in what amount;
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01154-WSS Document 1 Filed 07/31/20 Page 14 of 32
`
`f.
`
`Whether Defendant is likely to continue using false, misleading or unlawful
`
`conduct such that an injunction is necessary; and
`
`g.
`
`Whether Plaintiff and the Classes are entitled to an award of reasonable
`
`attorneys’ fees, interest, and costs of suit.
`
`48.
`
`Defendant has engaged in a common course of conduct giving rise to violations of
`
`the legal rights sought to be enforced uniformly by Plaintiff and Class members. Similar or
`
`identical statutory and common law violations, business practices, and injuries are involved. The
`
`injuries sustained by members of the proposed Classes flow, in each instance, from a common
`
`nucleus of operative fact, namely, Defendant’s deceptive packaging and advertising of the
`
`Products. Each instance of harm suffered by Plaintiff and Class members has directly resulted from
`
`a single course of illegal conduct. Each Class member has been exposed to the same deceptive
`
`practice, as each of the Products: (a) bear the materially same serving amount representations, and
`
`(b) do not contain enough ground coffee to make anywhere close to the represented serving
`
`amount. Therefore, individual questions, if any, pale in comparison to the numerous common
`
`questions presented in this action.
`
`49.
`
`Typicality: The representative Plaintiff’s claims are typical of those of the proposed
`
`Classes, as all members of the proposed Classes are similarly affected by Defendant’s uniform
`
`unlawful conduct as alleged herein.
`
`50.
`
`Adequacy: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the proposed
`
`Classes as his interests do not conflict with the interests of the members of the proposed Classes
`
`he seeks to represent, and he has retained counsel competent and experienced in class action
`
`litigation. The interests of the members of the Classes will be fairly and adequately protected by
`
`the Plaintiff and his counsel.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01154-WSS Document 1 Filed 07/31/20 Page 15 of 32
`
`51.
`
`Superiority: Because of the relatively small amount of damages at issue for each
`
`individual Class member, no Class member could afford to seek legal redress on an individual
`
`basis. Furthermore, individualized litigation increases the delay and expense to all parties and
`
`multiplies the burden on the judicial system presented by the complex legal and factual issues of
`
`this case. Individualized litigation also presents a potential for inconsistent or contradictory
`
`judgments. A class action is superior to any alternative means of prosecution. Defendant has also
`
`acted, or failed to act, on grounds generally applicable to Plaintiff and the proposed Classes,
`
`supporting the imposition of uniform relief to ensure compatible standards of conduct toward the
`
`members of the Classes.
`
`COUNT I
`
`Violation of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law
`73 P.S. §§ 201-1, et seq
`(for the Nationwide Class)
`
`52.
`
`Plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-51 above as if fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`53.
`
`Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of the
`
`proposed Nationwide Class against Defendant.
`
`54.
`
`Plaintiff, Defendant, and members of the Nationwide Class are “Person[s]” within
`
`the meaning of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law
`
`(“UTPCPL”), 73 P.S. § 201-2(2).
`
`55.
`
`73 P.S. § 201-3 declares unlawful “unfair methods of competition and unfair or
`
`deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce ….”
`
`56.
`
`Defendant’s business acts and practices alleged herein constituted deceptive acts or
`
`practices under the 73 P.S. § 201, et seq. Specifically, Defendant has violated the following
`
`subsections of the UTPCPL:
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01154-WSS Document 1 Filed 07/31/20 Page 16 of 32
`
`a.
`
`73 PS § 201-2(4)(v) prohibits “[r]epresenting that goods or services have
`
`sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities which they do
`
`not have . . . .” By marketing the Products with their current packaging, Defendant have
`
`represented and continue to represent that the Products have characteristics (i.e., contain
`
`enough ground coffee to make up to a specified number of servings) that they do not have.
`
`Therefore, Defendant has violated 73 P.S. § 201-2(4)(v).
`
`b.
`
`73 P.S. § 201-2(4)(vii) prohibits “[r]espresenting that goods or services are
`
`of a particular standard, quality, or grade, or that goods are of a particular style or model,
`
`if they are of another.” By marketing the Products with their current packaging, Defendant
`
`have represented and continue to represent that the Products are of a particular standard (i.e.,
`
`contain enough ground coffee to make up to a certain number of servings) which they do not
`
`possess. Therefore, Defendant has violated 73 PS § 201-2(4)(vii).
`
`c.
`
`73 P.S. § 201-2(4)(ix) prohibits “[a]dvertising goods or services with intent
`
`not to sell them as advertised.” By marketing the Products as containing enough ground
`
`coffee to make a specified number of servings, but not intending to sell the Products as such,
`
`Defendant has violated 73 P.S. § 201-2(4)(ix).
`
`57.
`
`Defendant has known or reasonably should have known that the Products did not
`
`contain enough ground coffee to make the represented number of servings, and that Plaintiff and
`
`other members of the Nationwide Class would reasonably and justifiably rely on the packaging in
`
`purchasing the Products.
`
`58.
`
`Defendant has intentionally and knowingly misrepresented material facts with an
`
`intent to mislead Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01154-WSS Document 1 Filed 07/31/20 Page 17 of 32
`
`59.
`
`The above unlawful, unfair, and deceptive acts and practices by Defendant were
`
`immoral, unethical, oppressive and unscrupulous. These acts caused substantial injury to Plaintiff
`
`and the Nationwide Class that they could not reasonably avoid, and this substantial injury
`
`outweighed any benefits to consumers or to competition.
`
`60.
`
`Defendant’s servings representations were material to Plaintiff and the Nationwide
`
`Class because they relate to the amount of product the consumer is receiving and paying for. A
`
`reasonable consumer would attach importance to such representations and would be induced to act
`
`thereon in making purchase decisions.
`
`61.
`
`As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff and members of
`
`the Nationwide Class suffered damages as alleged above.
`
`62.
`
`Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class seek an order enjoining Defendant’s deceptive
`
`acts and practices, and awarding attorneys’ fees, and any other just and proper relief available
`
`under the UTPCPL.
`
`63.
`
`In addition to or in lieu of actual damages, Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class seek
`
`statutory damages for each injury and violation which has occurred.
`
`64.
`
`Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class seek relief under 73 P.S. § 201-9.2, including,
`
`but not limited to, injunctive relief, actual damages or $100 per class member, whichever is greater,
`
`treble damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
`
`COUNT II
`
`Violation of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act
`California Civil Code § 1750, et seq.
`(for the California Consumer Subclass)
`
`65.
`
`Plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-51 above as if fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01154-WSS Document 1 Filed 07/31/20 Page 18 of 32
`
`66.
`
`Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of the
`
`proposed California Consumer Subclass against Defendant pursuant to California’s Consumers
`
`Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq.
`
`67.
`
`The Products are “goods” within the meaning of Cal. Civ. Code § 1761(a),
`
`Defendant is a “person” within the meaning of Cal. Civ. Code § 1761(c), and the purchases of such
`
`Products by Plaintiff and members of the California Consumer Subclass constitute “transactions”
`
`within the meaning of Cal. Civ. Code § 1761(e).
`
`68.
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1770(a)(5) prohibits “[r]epresenting that goods or services have
`
`sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities which they do not have
`
`…” By marketing the Products with their current packaging, Defendant have represented and
`
`continue to represent that the Products have characteristics (i.e., contain enough ground coffee to make
`
`up to a specified number of servings) that they do not have. Therefore, Defendant has violated
`
`section 1770(a)(5) of the CLRA.
`
`69.
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1770(a)(7) prohibits “[r]espresenting that goods or services are of
`
`a particular standard, quality, or grade, or that goods are of a particular style or model, if they are
`
`of another.” By marketing the Products with their current packaging, Defendant have represented
`
`and continue to represent that the Products are of a particular standard (i.e., contain enough ground
`
`coffee to make up to a certain number of servings) which they do not possess. Therefore, Defendant
`
`has violated section 1770(a)(7) of the CLRA.
`
`70.
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1770(a)(9) prohibits “[a]dvertising goods or services with intent
`
`not to sell them as advertised.” By marketing the Products as containing enough ground coffee to
`
`make a specified number of servings, but not intending to sell the Products as such, Defendant has
`
`violated section 1770(a)(9) of the CLRA.
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01154-WSS Document 1 Filed 07/31/20 Page 19 of 32
`
`71.
`
`At all relevant times, Defendant has known or reasonably should have known that
`
`the Products did not contain enough ground coffee to make the represented number of servings, and
`
`that Plaintiff and other members of the California Consumer Subclass would reasonably and
`
`justifiably rely on the packaging in purchasing the Products.
`
`72.
`
`Plaintiff and mem