Company: PRMB
Filing Date: 2025-11-06
Form Type: 10-Q
Source: 0001628280-25-049952
Chunk: 80

Company: Primo Brands Corp
Filing Date: 2025-11-06
Form: 10-Q
Item: Part I, Item 1
Chunk 80
---
 a result of rulings on multiple dispositive motions, the case has been narrowed in certain respects. Plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief have been dismissed. On December 30, 2024, the claims of eight Plaintiffs who are members of a class in a prior class action and subject to the Final Judgment entered in Ramsey v. Nestlé Waters N.Am., Case No. 03-CHK-817 (Ill Cir. Ct. 16th Cir. Kane Cnty.), were dismissed to the extent that they rely on purchases of Poland Spring bottled water sourced from certain spring water sources raised in Ramsey. On January 6, 2025, both Plaintiffs and BlueTriton Brands moved for reconsideration of portions of the December 30, 2024 decision, which granted in part and denied in part BlueTriton Brands’ motion for summary judgment. On June 9, 2025, the Court issued an order denying the parties’ respective motions for reconsideration. On July 9, 2025, Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification. On July 30, 2025, BlueTriton Brands filed its opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and its Daubert motions to preclude the opinions of plaintiffs’ damages experts. On July 31, 2025, Plaintiffs submitted a motion for an extension of time to file their reply and oppose BlueTriton Brands' Daubert motions, which was granted on August 1, 2025. Plaintiffs filed their reply in further support of their motion for class certification and their opposition to BlueTriton Brands' Daubert motions on August 20, 2025. BlueTriton Brands filed its replies in further support of its Daubert motions on September 3, 2025.Plaintiffs seek to certify two classes and ten derivative state subclasses separately consisting of retail customers and home and office customers.Plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages and/or statutory damages. For the common law fraud claims, Plaintiffs purport to compute damages by multiplying the alleged price premium that Nestlé Waters obtained from its alleged “spring water” misrepresentation by Nestlé Waters’ total dollar sales of Poland Spring still water products sold by Nestlé Waters during the class period, while statutory damages normally are determined by multiplying a statutorily established amount by the number of violations. The quantification of Plaintiffs’ recoverable damages is not reasonably determinable at this stage of the litigation. No trial date