Christina Wirth and Adam Wagner, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Mars Inc., Mars Petcare US Inc., Iams Company, Procter & Gamble Co.
Published: Mar. 5, 2016 | Result Date: Feb. 5, 2016 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 8:15-cv-01470-DOC-KES Bench Decision – Defense
Court
USDC Central
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Steve W. Berman
(Hagens, Berman, Sobol & Shapiro LLP)
Christopher R. Pitoun
(Hagens, Berman, Sobol & Shapiro LLP)
Defendant
Charles E. Weir
(Manatt, Phelps & Phillips)
Stephen D. Raber
(Williams & Connolly LLP)
Facts
Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against defendants Mars Inc., Mars Petcare US Inc., Iams Company, and Procter & Gamble Co., relating to Iams brand cat food. They brought claims under California Unfair Competition Law, the Legal Remedies Act, and the False Advertising Law.
Contentions
PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs contended that defendants, the manufacturers and sellers of pet food products, sold cat food that contained fish collected by forced labor from Thailand. They claimed that the Iams brand cat food did not mention that the labor used to catch the seafood was likely forced labor or otherwise disclose such information on defendants' websites, in violation of the law.
DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendants contended they did not omit any facts they were obligated to disclose and that they were shielded from liability under the safe harbor doctrine.
Result
The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs' claims were dismissed with prejudice.
Other Information
FILING DATE: Sept. 10, 2015.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390