`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-00410-X Document 24 Filed 05/05/20 Page 1 of 25 PageID 171Case 3:19-cv-00410-X Document 24 Filed 05/05/20 Page 1 of 25 PageID 171
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`DALLAS DIVISION
`
`MARILYN PIERCE, On Behalf of Herself
`and All Others Similarly Situated
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`v.
`
`NORTH DALLAS HONEY COMPANY,
`a Domestic Corporation,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§ CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`§
`
`§ CASE NO. 3:19-CV-0410-B
`§
`
`§
`§
`§
`§ JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiffs, Marilyn Pierce and Anish Dave (“Plaintiffs” or “Pierce” or “Dave”), by and
`
`through their undersigned counsel, on behalf of themselves and all other persons and entities
`
`similarly situated, allege against defendant North Dallas Honey Company, d/b/a Nature Nate’s,
`
`Inc., (“Nature Nate’s” or “Defendant”) the following facts and claims upon knowledge as to
`
`matters relating to themselves and upon information and belief as to all other matters and, by
`
`way of this Second Amended Class Action Complaint (“Amended Complaint”), avers as
`
`follows:
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is a proposed Class action brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and
`
`other consumers (“Proposed Class”) who purchased honey products from Nature Nate’s that
`
`were labeled “100% Pure, Raw & Unfiltered Honey” (“Raw Honey”). The Proposed Class
`
`contains two (2) proposed sub-classes, those being a sub-class of Texas consumers and a sub-
`
`class of Florida consumers.
`
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - PAGE 1
`
`
`7672076 v1 (71868.00002.000)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-00410-X Document 24 Filed 05/05/20 Page 2 of 25 PageID 172Case 3:19-cv-00410-X Document 24 Filed 05/05/20 Page 2 of 25 PageID 172
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Defendant fraudulently and deceptively labels and advertises its Raw Honey as
`
`100% raw and 100% pure, when such honey is neither 100% raw nor 100% pure. Defendant’s
`
`false and deceptive labeling and advertising violates Texas and Florida state food regulations.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class relied upon Defendant’s misleading and
`
`unlawful claims when purchasing Defendant’s honey products, and were damaged as a result.
`
`They bring this class action on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and the general
`
`public, alleging violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act
`
`(“TTPCPA”) and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”), as well as
`
`other common-law violations.
`
`4.
`
`This is not Defendant’s first time engaging in deceptive advertising,1 which
`
`further demonstrates the need to deter Defendant’s deceptive tactics—otherwise, consumers, like
`
`Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class, cannot be assured that Defendant’s products are not
`
`adulterated or misbranded, nor can they make informed choices among products, which defeats
`
`the very purpose of several federal and state laws.2
`
`5.
`
` As such, Plaintiffs seek an order, inter alia, compelling Defendant to (a) cease
`
`marketing its honey products using misleading and unlawful tactics complained of herein, (b)
`
`destroy all misleading, deceptive, and unlawful materials, (c) conduct a corrective label and
`
`advertising campaign, (d) restore the amounts by which they have been unjustly enriched due to
`
`its deceptive tactics, and (e) pay restitution, damages, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees as
`
`
`1
`Following an audit in 2012, Defendant was ordered by the FDA to “stop advertising its honey in
`ways that characterized it as a drug, i.e. by making various health claims for its products.” Healthwatcher, A Honey
`of Translation, HEALTH WATCHED (Dec. 9, 2013), https://healthwatched.org/2013/12/09/a-honey-of-a-translation/.
`2
`See Proper Labeling of Honey and Honey Products: Guidance for Industry, at 3, FDA (Feb. 2018),
`https://www.fda.gov/files/food/published/PDF---Guidance-for-Industry--Proper-Labeling-of-Honey-and-Honey-
`Products.pdf.
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - PAGE 2
`
`
`7672076 v1 (71868.00002.000)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-00410-X Document 24 Filed 05/05/20 Page 3 of 25 PageID 173Case 3:19-cv-00410-X Document 24 Filed 05/05/20 Page 3 of 25 PageID 173
`
`
`
`allowed by law.
`
`II.
`THE PARTIES
`
`Plaintiff Marilyn Pierce (“Pierce”) is a natural person and citizen of League City,
`
`6.
`
`Texas. Plaintiff does the grocery shopping for her family on a regular basis.
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiff Anish Dave (“Dave”) is a natural person and citizen of Weston, Florida.
`
`(together, “Plaintiffs.”)
`
`8.
`
`Defendant, North Dallas Honey Company, is a Texas Corporation with its
`
`principal place of business located at 2910 Nature Nate Farms, McKinney, Texas, and is
`
`organized and existing under the laws of the State of Texas. At all relevant times, Nature Nate’s
`
`transacted and conducted business in Texas and throughout the United States.
`
`III.
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`9.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to
`
`
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) (diversity jurisdiction) and the Class Action Fairness Act, in that (i) there
`
`is minimal diversity (Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of Florida and Texas consumers, many of
`
`whom are not citizens of Texas, including named Plaintiff Dave, a citizen of Florida, and
`
`Defendant is domiciled and incorporated in Texas), (ii) the amount in controversy exceeds
`
`$5,000,000.00 (Five Million Dollars) exclusive of interests and costs, and (iii) there are 100 or
`
`more members of the proposed Plaintiff class.
`
`10.
`
`Venue lies in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because the Defendant
`
`resides in this Judicial District, and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to
`
`Plaintiff's claims occurred in this Judicial District. In addition, Nature Nate’s does business
`
`and/or transacts business in this Judicial District, and therefore, is subject to personal jurisdiction
`
`in this Judicial District and resides here for venue purposes.
`
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - PAGE 3
`
`
`7672076 v1 (71868.00002.000)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-00410-X Document 24 Filed 05/05/20 Page 4 of 25 PageID 174Case 3:19-cv-00410-X Document 24 Filed 05/05/20 Page 4 of 25 PageID 174
`
`
`
`IV.
`FACTS
`
`A.
`
`Defendant’s Manufacturing, Marketing, Labeling, and Sale of Raw Honey.
`
`11.
`
`Nature Nate’s purchases honey from a variety of sources.3 These sources ship the
`
`honey to Nature Nate’s in large drums, and then Nature Nate’s blends the honey before
`
`distribution.4 In order to process and package its honey, Nature Nate’s heats it, so, according to
`
`Nature Nate’s, “it’s easier to deal with and pour into bottles.”5 Once processed and packaged,
`
`Nature Nate’s prepares and creates a label for each bottle that reads: “100% Pure: Raw &
`
`Unfiltered Honey,”6 which is depicted below:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`According to Nathan Sheets, CEO and Chief Steward of Nature Nate’s, Nature Nate’s purchases it
`honey from “150 beekeepers across the United States.” To the Bottle: A Hive Bottle Series from Nature Nate’s Co.,
`YouTube (Sep. 13, 2019), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42ezOwk4mI4&feature=emb_logo.
`4
`Id.
`5
`Raw & Unfiltered: What We Do (and What we Don’t), NATURE NATE’S, https://www.naturenates.
`com/raw-unfiltered/ (last visited May 4, 2020).
`6
`Id.
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - PAGE 4
`
`
`7672076 v1 (71868.00002.000)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-00410-X Document 24 Filed 05/05/20 Page 5 of 25 PageID 175Case 3:19-cv-00410-X Document 24 Filed 05/05/20 Page 5 of 25 PageID 175
`
`
`
`12.
`
`The Raw Honey is available in several sizes including 12, 16, and 32-oz bottles,
`
`and, according to Nature Nate’s website, is sold nationally at major retailers such as Target,
`
`Kroger, Randall’s Food Market, Walmart, and Tom Thumb.7 Nature Nate’s products are also
`
`available online at Amazon.com.
`
`13.
`
`Nature Nate has manufactured, labeled, marketed, distributed, and sold various
`
`Raw Honey products on a nationwide basis for several years.8
`
`B.
`
`The Raw Honey is not 100% Raw.
`
`14.
`
`Raw honey is best described as honey that exists in the beehive. It is made by
`
`extracting honey from the honeycombs of the hive and then straining it either by pouring it over
`
`a mesh or nylon cloth, or by using a jacketed tank fitted with a stirrer. Once strained, the honey is
`
`then heated at an acceptable industry standard to avoid losing its “raw” status before it is bottled,
`
`distributed and sold. When raw honey is overheated—that is, heated to more than 105 degrees—
`
`the enzymes in the honey that are prized by consumers who purchase raw honey become
`
`denatured. That is to say, they begin to break down and are lost.
`
`15.
`
`Evidence demonstrating that overheated honey loses its attributes of raw honey
`
`has long been understood in the honey industry, food labs, and by organic chemists. The
`
`scientific community and the honey industry employs a simple test to determine when honey has
`
`been overheated and the enzymes destroyed: reviewing the 5-hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF)
`
`value. The international standard promulgated by Codex Alimentarius for honey has set the
`
`maximum limit of HMF in table honey at 40 mg/kgto ensure that the product has not undergone
`
`extensive heating. The Codex Alimentarius is recognized by the World Trade Organization
`
`
`7
`Where to Buy, NATURE NATE’S, https://www.naturenates.com/store-finder/ (last visited May 4,
`
`2020).
`
`Our Story, NATURE NATE’S, https://www.naturenates.com/our-story/ (last visited May 5, 2020);
`8
`see also supra note 1.
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - PAGE 5
`
`
`7672076 v1 (71868.00002.000)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-00410-X Document 24 Filed 05/05/20 Page 6 of 25 PageID 176Case 3:19-cv-00410-X Document 24 Filed 05/05/20 Page 6 of 25 PageID 176
`
`
`
`as an international reference standard for the resolution of disputes concerning food safety and
`
`consumer protection. It has also set a value of 80 mg/kg for honey used industrially from tropical
`
`climates.
`
`16.
`
`Raw honey straight out of the hive has an HMF value of zero, or, at worst, in the
`
`single digits. The scientific community and the honey industry have long understood that HMF
`
`values over 40, indicates that honey has been heated to a temperature above 105 degrees
`
`Fahrenheit and is strong evidence that honey has been heated enough to break down the enzymes
`
`contained in the honey. Nature Nate’s even recognizes that “[h]igh heat is a no no, [as i]t kills all
`
`the good stuff.”9 Nature Nate’s therefore knows and acknowledges, on its website, that high heat
`
`damages raw honey.
`
`17.
`
`The sample of Nature Nate’s Raw Honey that the Plaintiff Pierce purchased from
`
`a Walmart store near her home in League City on December 22, 2018 had a tested HMF value of
`
`292, more than 7 times the threshold of 40 for table honey. The sample of Nature Nate’s Raw
`
`Honey that Plaintiff Dave purchased had a tested HMF value of 232. The elevated HMF value
`
`for Plaintiffs’ bottles of Nature Nate’s Raw Honey is not an aberration. Additional samples of
`
`Nature Nate’s Raw Honey have been tested and all demonstrated values of more than 40: they
`
`are, in ascending order, 69, 80, 103, 232 (Dave sample) and 292 (Pierce sample).
`
`18.
`
`Moreover, Nature Nate’s representatives have admitted that they heat their Raw
`
`Honey to 120 degrees, well beyond the 105-degree threshold. Nature Nate’s further admits, on
`
`its website, that it heats its honey to package it, but falsely claims that it “gently heats the honey
`
`so that it doesn't lose all the good stuff.” Thus, Nature Nate’s has actual knowledge that it was,
`
`and continues, to destroy the enzymes in its honey, rendering it not “raw.”
`
`
`9
`See source cited supra note 5.
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - PAGE 6
`
`
`7672076 v1 (71868.00002.000)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-00410-X Document 24 Filed 05/05/20 Page 7 of 25 PageID 177Case 3:19-cv-00410-X Document 24 Filed 05/05/20 Page 7 of 25 PageID 177
`
`
`
`C.
`
`The Raw Honey is not 100% Pure.
`
`19.
`
`Pure honey is honey to which no ingredient, such as sugar, corn syrup, or artificial
`
`flavors, has been added.
`
`20.
`
`Some of the samples of Nature Nate’s Raw Honey tested showed that syrups had
`
`been added to the honey, so the honey was not comprised of 100% honey or otherwise pure.
`
`Nature Nate’s knowledge that its honey is neither raw nor 100% pure honey is evident from its
`
`claim that: “We only bottle the best. That’s why we test. And test. And test. No antibiotics,
`
`pesticides or herbicides or added corn or rice syrup get past us.” “We ensure 100% purity
`
`through rigorous testing . . . . All testing is done through third party labs and in our in-house lab
`
`to ensure quality and consistency every time.”10
`
`21.
`
`These representations are false. If Nature Nate’s actually did the testing it claims,
`
`then it would have discovered that its honey was not pure, as it contained a syrup additive. If it
`
`made this statement in ignorance, then its claim that it “tests and tests” is false. Nature Nate’s
`
`therefore had actual or constructive knowledge that its honey was not pure.
`
`D.
`
`Defendant’s Labeled and Advertised the Raw Honey with False and Misleading
`Claims.
`
`22.
`
`Despite its knowledge that its “100% Pure, Raw & Unfiltered Honey” products
`
`are neither 100% raw nor 100% pure, Nature Nate’s continues to sell its Raw Honey at prices it
`
`could not hope to receive for processed honey; that is, honey that is not 100% raw.
`
`23.
`
`There is no question that consumers are generally willing to pay more for foods
`
`that they perceive as being raw and pure than other alternatives. The National Honey Board 2019
`
`Food Labeling Study, for instance, found that “over half of the consumers in [its] study
`
`frequently looked at . . . labels; suggesting that this could have a real-world impact on purchase,
`
`
`10
`See sources cited supra notes 5, 8.
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - PAGE 7
`
`
`7672076 v1 (71868.00002.000)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-00410-X Document 24 Filed 05/05/20 Page 8 of 25 PageID 178Case 3:19-cv-00410-X Document 24 Filed 05/05/20 Page 8 of 25 PageID 178
`
`
`
`perceptions, and confidence in honey.”11 Additionally, Nielsen’s 2015 Global Health & Wellness
`
`Survey found that “88% of those polled are willing to pay more for healthier foods.”12
`
`24.
`
`Nature Nate’s is well aware of consumer preferences for raw and pure honey, and
`
`therefore employ, and have employed, a strategic advertising campaign intended to convince
`
`consumers, such as Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class, that its honey products are 100% raw and
`
`pure, despite that they are not raw and include an undisclosed syrup additive.13
`
`E.
`
`Defendant Had Actual or Constructive Knowledge that the Raw Honey was not
`Raw and Not Pure.
`
`25.
`
`Despite the fact that its Raw Honey is not, in fact, raw or pure, Nature Nate’s
`
`falsely advertises on the internet and labels some of its honey products as 100% “Pure” and
`
`“Raw.” These statements are false and misleading.
`
`26.
`
`At all relevant times, Nature Nate’s had knowledge that its Raw Honey was
`
`heated to the point of destroying the enzymes found in raw honey that people seek out and expect
`
`from raw honey. Nature Nate’s knew its Raw Honey was mislabeled and that it did not have the
`
`health benefits implicitly advertised in its Raw Honey, and Nature Nate’s took no action to: (1)
`
`inform purchasers of the defects in its Raw Honey; or (2) recall its mismarked Raw Honey.
`
`Nature Nate’s concealed this knowledge from the Proposed Class.
`
`27.
`
`At all relevant times, Nature Nate’s knew that its Raw Honey was: (a) defective;
`
`(b) would not have the benefits of raw honey; and (c) the defect, if known, would have failed to
`
`meet the reasonable expectations of consumers, and would not have been, or would not be, sold
`
`at the premium price Nature Nate’s charges for its Raw Honey.
`
`
`11
`Food Labeling Study, at 8, NAT’L HONEY BRD. (Jan. 2020), https://www.honey.com
`/files/general/Food-Labeling-Study-Final-Report.pdf
`12
`Nancy Gagliardi, Consumers Want Healthy Foods—and Will Pay More for Them, FORBES (Feb.
`18, 2015) (citing Nielsen, 2015 Global Health & Wellness Survey, at 11 (Jan. 2015)).
`13
`See labels supra Sec. IV.A; see also sources cited supra note 1, 5; Nature Nate’s Raw &
`Unfiltered Honey Commercial, YOUTUBE (Nov. 2, 2016), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAaI9paIMJE.
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - PAGE 8
`
`
`7672076 v1 (71868.00002.000)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-00410-X Document 24 Filed 05/05/20 Page 9 of 25 PageID 179Case 3:19-cv-00410-X Document 24 Filed 05/05/20 Page 9 of 25 PageID 179
`
`
`
`28.
`
`Nature Nate’s knew prior to sale to Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class that the Raw
`
`Honey it offered for sale as raw was not, in fact, raw and did not contain all of the enzymes found
`
`in raw honey.
`
`29. Nature Nate's also had actual or constructive knowledge that its Raw Honey had
`
`had syrup added to it. Nature Nate’s knew that even if diligently examined or inspected,
`
`consumers would not: (a) be capable of determining that Nature Nate’s Raw Honey did not have
`
`the properties of raw honey or that syrup had been added to the honey; and, (b) be able to
`
`determine the cause of the problems with the Raw Honey.
`
`30.
`
`Thus, Nature Nate’s knew: (a) it was selling honey identified as 100% pure that
`
`was not pure and that had been adulterated with syrup; (b) Nature Nate’s customers such as
`
`Plaintiffs and the proposed Class were not aware that they were buying honey that was not 100%
`
`pure; and (c) those customers had a reasonable expectation that Nature Nate’s would accurately
`
`describe its Honey on its label and website.
`
`31.
`
`Despite such knowledge, Nature Nate’s did not disclose to the market such as
`
`Plaintiffs or the Proposed Class that it was selling cooked honey with syrup added and that its
`
`cooked honey—falsely described as 100% Pure: Raw & Unfiltered on its label—did not have the
`
`chemical properties that Nature Nate’s and the market attribute to 100% Raw Honey. At all
`
`relevant times, Nature Nate’s had knowledge that the Honey was defective but took no action to:
`
`(1) inform purchasers such as Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class about the Honey or the defects; or
`
`(2) recall the Honey. Instead, Nature Nate’s concealed, suppressed, and/or omitted these material
`
`facts from Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class.
`
`32.
`
`Nature Nate’s conduct thereby deprived consumers such as Plaintiffs and the
`
`Proposed Class of the opportunity to negotiate or pay a lower price to reflect the diminished
`
`value of the Raw Honey, or simply avoid buying Nature Nate’s Raw Honey altogether.
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - PAGE 9
`
`
`7672076 v1 (71868.00002.000)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-00410-X Document 24 Filed 05/05/20 Page 10 of 25 PageID 180Case 3:19-cv-00410-X Document 24 Filed 05/05/20 Page 10 of 25 PageID 180
`
`
`
`33.
`
`Consumers,
`
`like Plaintiffs and
`
`the proposed Class, have
`
`reasonable
`
`expectations/that:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`honey processors’ products or marketing such as Nature Nate’s would
`accurately describe their product on their label so that consumers could
`make their honey purchases based upon accurate information on the
`label; and/or,
`
`honey company processing, producing or marketing, such as Nature
`Nate’s, would only sell honey described as 100% raw if it had the
`perceived physical properties that are associated with raw honey and that
`it was pure.
`
`
`Plaintiffs’ Experience
`
`F.
`
`34.
`
`Plaintiff Pierce purchased Nature Nate’s 100% Raw Honey in December 22,
`
`2018 at her local Walmart.
`
`35.
`
`Plaintiff Dave purchased Nature Nate’s 100% pure raw honey in January, 2019 in
`
`Weston, Florida.
`
`36.
`
`Unknown to Plaintiffs, the Honey was mislabeled and defective in that it was
`
`improperly described as “100% Pure: Raw & Unfiltered Honey” even though it had been heated
`
`to such a degree that the physical properties recognized and promoted by honey industry
`
`proponents in raw honey were cooked away and even though syrup had been added to the Honey.
`
`37.
`
`Relying on the efficacy of Nature Nate’s labeling information, Plaintiffs each
`
`purchased a bottle of Nature Nate’s 100% Raw Honey. Plaintiffs had no way of knowing or
`
`even of discovering that the Honey was mismarked and defective.
`
`38.
`
`Nature Nate’s charges a premium for its 100% Raw Honey that is substantially
`
`more than other companies charge for their processed honey products, that is honey that is less
`
`than 100% raw.
`
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - PAGE 10
`
`
`7672076 v1 (71868.00002.000)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-00410-X Document 24 Filed 05/05/20 Page 11 of 25 PageID 181Case 3:19-cv-00410-X Document 24 Filed 05/05/20 Page 11 of 25 PageID 181
`
`
`
`V.
`COMMMON FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`39.
`
`Upon information and belief, Nature Nate’s has sold, directly or indirectly
`
`(through grocery stores, health food stores, specialty retailers and other retail outlets), thousands
`
`of bottles of 100% Raw Honey in Texas and Florida and across the United States.
`
`40.
`
`Nature Nate’s represented that each bottle of 100% Raw Honey conformed to the
`
`generally understood definition of raw and pure, that is, that it had not been heated to such an
`
`extent that it lost the physical properties of raw honey and contained no syrup additives.
`
`41.
`
`These representations became part of the basis of the bargain when Plaintiffs and
`
`Proposed Class members purchased the Nature Nate’s product marked 100% Raw Honey.
`
`42.
`
`Plaintiffs and Proposed Class members relied on Nature Nate’s representations
`
`on the Honey bottles’ labels and on Nature Nate’s website and accepted such representations as
`
`being true.
`
`43.
`
`However, the Honey does not conform to these express representations and, as
`
`alleged herein, Nature Nate’s breached its express representations concerning its Raw Honey.
`
`44.
`
`The defects and deficiencies in the Raw Honey are due to Nature Nate’s decision
`
`to heat the honey to make processing and bottling easier and to bottle and sell honey with syrup
`
`added to it.
`
`45.
`
`Despite knowing of the defects in its Raw Honey, Nature Nate’s has not notified
`
`all consumers, purchasers or retailers of the defects nor provided uniform relief.
`
`46.
`
`Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class members have not received the value for which
`
`they bargained when the Raw Honey was purchased by them. There is a difference in value
`
`between the Raw Honey as labeled and advertised and the honey as it actually exists.
`
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - PAGE 11
`
`
`7672076 v1 (71868.00002.000)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-00410-X Document 24 Filed 05/05/20 Page 12 of 25 PageID 182Case 3:19-cv-00410-X Document 24 Filed 05/05/20 Page 12 of 25 PageID 182
`
`
`
`VI.
`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`
`47.
`
`Plaintiffs bring this class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. The requirements
`
`of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(2), (b)(3) and (c)(4) are met with respect to the classes defined
`
`below:
`
`
`
`All persons and entities in Florida and Texas who made retail
`purchases of Nature Nate’s 100% Raw Honey products during
`the applicable limitations period.
`
`Excluded from the Class are: (a) any Judge or Magistrate presiding over this action and
`
`members of their families; (b) Nature Nate’s and any entity in which Nature Nate’s has a
`
`controlling interest or which has a controlling interest in Nature Nate’s and its legal
`
`representatives, assigns and successors of Nature Nate’s; and (c) all persons who properly
`
`execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the proposed Class.
`
`48.
`
`Numerosity: The Proposed Class is composed of thousands of persons
`
`geographically dispersed, the joinder of whom in one action is impractical.
`
`49.
`
`Commonality: Questions of law and fact common to the Proposed Class exist as
`
`to all members of the Proposed Class and predominate over any questions affecting only
`
`individual members of the Class. These common legal and factual issues include, but are not
`
`limited to the following:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`Whether Nature Nate’s 100% Raw Honey is mislabeled;
`
`Whether Nature Nate’s 100% Raw Honey labels are misleading;
`
`Whether Nature Nate’s 100% Raw Honey is not in fact raw;
`
`Whether Nature Nate’s 100% Raw Honey has syrup added to it, thus not
`pure;
`
`Whether Nature Nate’s knew or should have known of the defects;
`
`Whether Nature Nate’s concealed from consumers and/or failed to
`f.
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - PAGE 12
`
`
`7672076 v1 (71868.00002.000)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-00410-X Document 24 Filed 05/05/20 Page 13 of 25 PageID 183Case 3:19-cv-00410-X Document 24 Filed 05/05/20 Page 13 of 25 PageID 183
`
`
`
`disclose to consumers the defects;
`
`Whether Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class members are entitled to
`compensatory damages,
`including,
`among other
`things:
`(i)
`compensation for all monies paid by members of the Proposed Class for
`Nature Nate’s Raw Honey; (ii) the failure of consideration in
`connection with and/or difference in value arising out of the variance
`between the Raw Honey as advertised and the Raw Honey as it really
`is;
`
`Whether Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class members are entitled to
`restitution and/or disgorgement.
`
`Whether Nature Nate’s falsely advertised and marketed its Raw Honey
`products to consumers including Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class;
`
`Whether the Raw Honey conforms to the applicable industry standards;
`
`Whether Nature Nate’s concealed the defective nature of the Raw
`Honey; and
`
`Whether Nature Nate’s conduct as alleged is misleading, deceptive
`and/or unconscionable.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`k.
`
`l.
`
`50.
`
`Typicality: Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the proposed members of
`
`the Proposed Class, as all such claims arise out of Nature Nate’s conduct in heating, packaging
`
`and bottling its Raw Honey product, its marketing, advertising, warranting and selling the
`
`defective Honey and its conduct in concealing the defects in the Raw Honey, and Plaintiffs’ and
`
`the Proposed Class members’ purchases of the defective Honey.
`
`51.
`
`Adequate Representation: Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests
`
`of the members of the Proposed Class and has no interests antagonistic to those of the Proposed
`
`Class. Plaintiffs have retained counsel experienced in the prosecution of complex class actions,
`
`including consumer class actions involving product liability and product design defects.
`
`52.
`
`Predominance and Superiority: This class action is appropriate for certification
`
`because questions of law and fact common to the members of the Proposed Class predominate
`
`over questions affecting only individual members and a class action, is superior to other available
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - PAGE 13
`
`
`7672076 v1 (71868.00002.000)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-00410-X Document 24 Filed 05/05/20 Page 14 of 25 PageID 184Case 3:19-cv-00410-X Document 24 Filed 05/05/20 Page 14 of 25 PageID 184
`
`
`
`methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy, since individual joinder of all
`
`members of the Proposed Class is impracticable. Should individual Proposed Class members be
`
`required to bring separate actions, this Court and Courts throughout Texas and Florida would be
`
`confronted with a multiplicity of lawsuits burdening the court systems while also creating the
`
`risk of inconsistent rulings and contradictory judgments. In contrast to proceeding on a case-by-
`
`case basis, in which inconsistent results will magnify the delay and expense to all parties and the
`
`court system, this class action presents far fewer management difficulties while providing unitary
`
`adjudication, economies of scale and comprehensive supervision by a single court.
`
`VII.
`CAUSES OF ACTION
`
`COUNT I: VIOLATION OF THE TEXAS DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES-
`CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
`
`
`A.
`
`
`
`53.
`
`Plaintiff Pierce, on behalf of herself and the Texas sub-class, adopts and
`
`incorporates by reference all foregoing allegations as though fully set forth herein.
`
`54.
`
`The conduct described above and throughout this Amended Complaint was
`
`committed by a Texas corporation and constitutes unfair business practices in violation of the
`
`Texas Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (“TTPCPA”), TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 17.4,
`
`et seq.
`
`55.
`
`The TTPCPA applies to Plaintiff Pierce and all Texas sub-class members’ claims
`
`who purchased Nature Nate’s Raw Honey because the conduct, which constitutes violations of
`
`the TTPCPA by the Defendant, occurred within the State of Texas and was committed by a
`
`Texas company.
`
`56.
`
`The TTPCPA prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive
`
`acts or practices, including among other things, “False, misleading, or deceptive acts or
`
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - PAGE 14
`
`
`7672076 v1 (71868.00002.000)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-00410-X Document 24 Filed 05/05/20 Page 15 of 25 PageID 185Case 3:19-cv-00410-X Document 24 Filed 05/05/20 Page 15 of 25 PageID 185
`
`
`
`practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.”14 This includes, but is not limited to,
`
`“failing to disclose information concerning goods or services which was known at the time of
`
`the transaction if such failure to disclose such information was intended to induce the consumer
`
`into a transaction into which the consumer would not have entered had the information been
`
`disclosed.”15
`
`57.
`
`Nature Nate’s knowingly (with actual or constructive knowledge) engaged in the
`
`concealment, deception, suppression, and/or omission of material facts in violation of the
`
`TTPCPA when, in labeling, advertising, and selling its Raw Honey, Nature Nate’s knew that the
`
`Raw Honey was not, in fact, 100% raw nor pure, that it had been stripped of all or many of its
`
`physical properties recognized by the honey industry and its consumers, and that it included an
`
`undisclosed syrup additive, but instead deceptively labeled and advertised the Raw Honey as
`
`100% raw and pure.
`
`58.
`
`Nature Nate’s further knowingly and intentionally engaged in false, misleading
`
`and deceptive acts when it misrepresented that it tested its Raw Honey constantly to ensure that
`
`its claims were accurate, with the intent that others, such as Plaintiffs and the Texas sub-class
`
`would rely upon, as if true, the deception and misrepresentations of material facts and purchase
`
`Nature Nate's Raw Honey.
`
`59.
`
`Plaintiff Pierce and the Texas sub-class would not have purchased the Raw Honey
`
`or would not have paid the premium price of Nature Nate’s Raw Honey, had they known or
`
`become informed of the material defects in the Raw Honey.
`
`60.
`
`Nature Nate’s deception and misrepresentation or omission of material facts as
`
`alleged herein constitute unfair, deceptive and fraudulent business practices within the meaning
`
`
`14
`TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 17.46 (a).
`
`15
`Id. (b)(24).
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - PAGE 15
`
`
`7672076 v1 (71868.00002.000)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-00410-X Document 24 Filed 05/05/20 Page 16 of 25 PageID 186Case 3:19-cv-00410-X Document 24 Filed 05/05/20 Page 16 of 25 PageID 186
`
`
`
`of the TDTPA.
`
`61.
`
`Nature Nate’s has acted unfairly and deceptively by misrepresenting the nature
`
`and quality of the Raw Honey.
`
`62.
`
`Nature Nate’s either knew, or had constructive knowledge, that the Raw Honey
`
`was defectively processed, packaged, labeled, advertised, and sold when the Raw Honey was
`
`heated to temperatures above 105 degrees and contained an undisclosed syrup additive, such that
`
`the Raw Honey was not as advertised or described.
`
`63.
`
`Upon information and belief, Nature Nate’s knew that, at the time the Raw Honey
`
`left Nature Nate’s control, the Honey was defective as described herein. At the time of sale, the
`
`Honey was defective as described.
`
`64.
`
`As a direct and proximate cause of the violation of the TTCPA described above,
`
`Plain