Our weekly roundup intends to keep our readers approximately date on current noteworthy judgments in the food & & customer packaged products area.
- Makiko Fukaya v. Daiso California LLC et al., No. 3:23- cv-00099-JSC (N.D. Cal. – – Might 11, 2023 ): The Northern District of California cut a putative class action challenging the labeling of the offender’& rsquo; s cookie and treat items Particularly, the complainant declared that the items were identified as not consisting of tree nut active ingredients when, in truth, they did. The court held that the complainant did not have standing to pursue injunctive relief under the Customers Legal Solutions Act (CLRA), FAL, and Unfair Competitors Law (UCL) and dismissed these claims with leave to change. The court likewise gave termination of the complainant’& rsquo; s reveal service warranty claims as improperly pleaded. However the court permitted the complainant’& rsquo; s ask for disgorgement under the FAL and UCL to endure. The complainant is represented by Law Workplaces of Ara Jabagchourian, P.C. Viewpoint connected here.
- Chris Guerra v. Kind, LLC, No. 3:22- cv-06654-RS (N.D. Cal. – – Might 11, 2023): The Northern District of California cut a putative class action challenging the declarations made on the product packaging of the offender’& rsquo; s protein and nut bars, oatmeal, and cereal items relating to the protein material of those items. The court dismissed claims postulated on front-label protein declares as being illegal per se and the omission of a “& ldquo; % Daily Worth & rdquo; for protein in the nutrition realities panel. The court permitted claims to continue on a misleading-by-omission theory, discovering that they “& ldquo; hardly & rdquo; endured preemption. The complainant is represented by Gutride Safier LLP. Viewpoint connected here.