This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Consumer Law
Consumer Protection
False Advertising

Katrina Garcia and Laura Eggnatz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Julie Martin, individually v. Kashi Company, The Kellog Company

Published: Nov. 14, 2015 | Result Date: Sep. 4, 2015 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 1:12-cv-24362-JAL Settlement –  $4,000,000

Court

USDC Florida


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Robert A. Chaffin

Mark A. Milstein
(Milstein, Adelman, Jackson, Fairchild & Wade LLP)

Gillian L. Wade
(Milstein, Jackson, Fairchild & Wade LLP)

Angela Arango-Chaffin

Sara D. Avila
(Milstein, Jackson, Fairchild & Wade LLP)

L. DeWayne Layfield
(Law Office of L. DeWayne Layfield PLLC)


Defendant

Edward M. Waller Jr.

Dean N. Panos
(Jenner & Block LLP)

Kenneth K. Lee

Richard P. Steinken
(Jenner & Block LLP)


Facts

Katrina Garcia and Laura Eggnatz filed a class action while Julie Martin, individually, filed a case against Kashi Co. and The Kellogg Co., concerning certain Kashi products. Plaintiffs' lawsuits were later consolidated into a class action.

Julie Martin voluntarily dismissed her action against defendant, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(ii).

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs accused defendants of mislabeling Kashi products as "all natural," 100 percent natural, or "nothing artificial," when, they claimed in reality, the products contained genetically modified organisms.

Plaintiffs asserted causes of action for violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, negligent misrepresentation, breach of implied warranty of fitness for purpose, breach of express warranty, declaratory judgment, money had and received, violations of California Business & Professions Code Sections 17500 et seq., violations of California Civil Code Sections 1750 et seq., violations of the "unfair" and "fraudulent" prongs of Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq., and violations of the "unlawful" prong of the same.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendants moved to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim for relief. Defendants asserted that the Food and Drug Administration does not require disclosure of bioengineered ingredients. Defendants also claimed that plaintiff's claims were preempted by FDA policy and regulations.

Result

The parties reached a $4 million settlement. Under the settlement, eligible class members who do not have receipts evidencing purchase were entitled to a maximum of $27.50, while those who could substantiate their purchases were not so limited.


#110725

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390