U.S. judge sanctions plaintiffs’ firm for making ‘false representations’ in SunnyD labeling suit

A four-person San Diego law firm will have to pay nearly $85,000 in sanctions for using photos of beverage products it pulled from a defendant's website in a putative labeling class action, a federal judge has ruled, saying the photos constituted "false representations."

U.S. District Judge Josephine L. Staton said Wednesday the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron would have to cough up $84,383.13 for using what she said were inaccurate images of SunnyD beverages in an amended complaint in a putative class action alleging the products' labels didn't meet state law disclosure requirements.

The lawsuit said Sunny Delight Beverages Co. failed to properly disclose that several of its drinks were artificially flavored. As evidence, lawyers at Marron's firm included two images pulled from Sunny Delight's website of orange pineapple and orange strawberry drinks that do not have on the front any visible disclosures about flavoring.

But the company's chief marketing officer told the court the images on its website did not reflect actual labels available to consumers. "For at least the last five years, orange strawberry has contained the language 'artificially flavored citrus punch' right next to the fruit images on the front of the label," Staton quoted the officer as saying.

Attorneys at BraunHagey & Borden LLP who represent Sunny Delight Beverages Co. requested $106,094.98 in compensation for having to defend the suit, but on Wednesday Staton said some of the requests were unreasonable. Hunt v. Sunny Delight Beverages Co., 18-CV00557 (C.D. Cal., filed Apr. 2, 2018).

Marron, who filed the suit in 2018, described the ruling as "odd."

"Plaintiffs believe the sanctions award is unfair, unwarranted and punitive," he said in an email. "It's an unreasonable finding given the facts relied on were from defendants' own website, laboratory testing and still may prove true during the class period."

Marron's firm has since filed an amended complaint with its own photographs of bottles. They argue even the containers labeled with notices of artificial flavoring do not meet labeling requirements.

In a phone interview Wednesday, Marron said he was mulling a motion for reconsideration before Staton.

Matthew Borden, a partner at BraunHagey, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.