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
Fraud
Deceptive Business Practices Act

Linda Suchanek, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sturm Foods Inc., Treehouse Foods Inc.

Published: Mar. 13, 2020 | Filing Date: Jun. 28, 2011 |

Case number: USDC Illinois: 3:11-cv-00565-NJR-RJD Settlement –  $25,000,000

Attorneys

Plaintiff

Peter H. Burke
(Burke Harvey LLC)

J. Allen Schreiber
(Schreiber Law Firm PC)

David M. Rosenberg-Wohl
(Hershenson Rosenberg-Wohl APC)

D. Todd Mathews
(The Gori Law Firm)

Patrick C. Cooper
(Ward & Cooper)


Defendant

Craig S. Fochler
(Foley & Lardner LLP)

John F. Zabriskie
(Foley & Lardner LLP)

Jaclyne D. Wallace
(Foley & Lardner LLP)

Anne M. Coghlan
(Foley & Lardner LLP)

Jonathan W. Garlough
(Foley & Lardner LLP)


Facts

Consumers in eight states (Alabama, California, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee) filed suit against defendants Strum Foods Inc. and Treehouse Foods Inc. in relation to its labeling and advertising of its Grove Square instant coffee products.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs alleged that defendants misled customers with the labeling and advertising of its Grove Square instant coffee products by suggesting that the products contained premium coffee. Plaintiffs contended that defendants violated various consumer protection and unjust enrichment laws by purposely mislabeling their Grove Square Coffee Light Roast, Grove Square Coffee Medium Roast, and Grove Square Coffee Dark Roast as containing premium ground coffee when the products actually contained more than 96 percent instant coffee. Plaintiffs also contended that defendants intentionally sold the products to a targeted consumer, the Keurig user, and knowingly provided a type of product that a Keurig user would not expect to use in their brewer.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied the contentions.

Result

The parties entered into a $25 million settlement agreement.

Other Information

JUDGE: Hon. Nancy J. Rosenstengel.


#134055

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

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