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
False Advertising
Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act

Janet Hood, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wholesoy & Co., Modesto Wholesoy Co. LLC, The Wholesoy Co., Tan Industries Inc., Ken Nordquist, Ted Nordquist

Published: Dec. 14, 2013 | Result Date: Jul. 12, 2013 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 4:12-cv-05550-YGR Bench Decision –  Dismissal

Court

USDC Northern


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Colin H. Dunn

Ben F. Pierce Gore
(Pratt & Associates)

Dewitt M. Lovelace Sr.


Defendant

Kelly M. Morrison

Kenneth K. Lee


Facts

Janet Hood filed a class action against Wholesoy & Co. and other companies, arguing that their product labels didn't comply with federal law requirements.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
Hood asserted causes of action under various state and federal consumer protection statutes, including the California Unfair Competition Law, the California False Advertising Law, the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Hood claimed that Wholesoy's product label was false and misleading, because it didn't list "sugar" or "dried cane syrup" as ingredients. Instead, Wholesoy listed "organic evaporated cane juice," which violated federal labeling rules. She also argued that Wholesoy misleadingly labeled some of its products as yogurt, despite not containing any form of milk. Hood claimed that she purchased these products starting in 2008, relying on the labels for the products. She later learned that the labels were false, and claimed that Wholesoy had acted unlawfully and deceptively.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendants move to dismiss, arguing that the Food and Drug Administration had jurisdiction over these issues, and that the court would be undermining that jurisdiction by contradicting the FDA's decisions.

Result

The court granted defendant's motion to dismiss, finding that it was appropriate to defer to the FDA.


#117849

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

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