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 Labeling

Lucina Caldera v. The J.M. Smucker Co.

Published: May 10, 2014 | Result Date: Apr. 15, 2014 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 2:12-cv-04936-GHK-VBK Bench Decision –  Class Certification Denied

Court

USDC Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Alexis Wood

Gregory S. Weston
(The Weston Firm)

John E. Fitzgerald III
(FitzGerald & Mule LLP)

Ronald A. Marron
(Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron APLC)

Melanie R. Persinger
(Fitzgerald Joseph LLP)

Beatrice Skye Resendes
(Watkins Firm APC)


Defendant

Jason Hamilton

Neal R. Marder
(Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld LLP)

Ronald Rothstein

Erin R. Ranahan


Facts

Lucina Caldera filed a class action against The J.M. Smucker Co. concerning the marketing of Uncrustables and Crisco Original and Butter Flavor Shortening.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Caldera contended that the packaging of the Uncrustables and Cirsco Original and Butter Flavor Shortening products was misleading. Caldera contended that the packaging misled consumers into believing that the products were healthful, although plaintiff claimed the products contained unhealthy ingredients including trans fat and high fructose corn syrup. Caldera asserted claims for violation of the Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, breach of express warranty, and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.

Result

The court denied Caldera's motion for class certification in its entirety. The motion to certify the monetary relief classes was denied with prejudice. Plaintiff's motion to certify the injunctive relief classes was denied without prejudice and the court ordered Caldera to show cause as to why certification of injunctive relief classes was warranted or even necessary given that the injunctive relief plaintiff was seeking could be pursued in her individual claim.

Other Information

Although plaintiff's motion for monetary relief classes was denied with prejudice, the court stated plaintiff could still seek an injunctive relief class under FRCP 23(b)(2).


#97969

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

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