Skip to content

menu

Open Legal Blog Archive logo
HomeAboutBlogsFAQsSubmit

New Filings For August 29, 2016

By Jacqueline E. Young on August 29, 2016

Berni, et al. v. Barilla S.P.A., et al¸ No. 1:16-cv-4196 (E.D.N.Y.): Putative class action asserting a violation of New York GBL 349 and raising a claim of unjust enrichment, based on the claim that Defendants misleadingly market their “Whole Grain” and “Protein Plus” varieties of pasta by packaging them in boxes that are the same size as “regular” pasta, although the boxes have significant non-functional slack-fill.  Complaint.

Envtl. Research Ctr., Inc. v. Omega Protein Corp. et al, No. RG16-825174 (Cal. Super. Ct. – Alameda Cnty.): Proposition 65 action alleging Defendant’s dietary supplement products contain lead.

Envtl. Research Ctr., Inc. v. Grenade (U.K.) Ltd., No. RG16-825048 (Cal. Super. Ct. – Alameda Cnty.): Proposition 65 action alleging Defendant’s dietary supplement products contain lead.

Haack v. Drew’s LLC, No. 7:16-cv-60222 (S.D.N.Y.): Putative class action asserting violations of multiple states’ consumer protection laws on behalf of a national class, New York’s consumer protection statutes on behalf of a New York subclass, and raising claims for breach of express warranty, fraud (under Vermont common law), and common law unjust enrichment. Plaintiff claims Defendant’s salad dressings and marinades are deceptively marketed as “All Natural,” although the products contain synthetic ingredients, including xanthan gum, lactic acid, and citric acid.  Complaint.

  • Posted in:
    Food, Drug & Agriculture
  • Blog:
    Food & Consumer Packaged Goods Litigation
  • Organization:
    Perkins Coie LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Open Legal Blog Archive, Inc. logo
Seattle, Washington
Copyright © 2026, Open Legal Blog Archive, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo