throbber

`
`
`
`
`
`
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket