UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CORPORATE ACCOUNTABILITY LAB, 

 Plaintiff,

 v. 

THE HERSHEY COMPANY, and THE 

RAINFOREST ALLIANCE, INC.,

 Defendants.

Civil Action No. 21-3225 (TFH)

OPINION AND ORDER

 On October 27, 2021, Corporate Accountability Lab (“CAL”) filed a complaint in the

Superior Court of the District of Columbia against The Hershey Company (“Hershey”) and The 

Rainforest Alliance, Inc. for violations of the District of Columbia Consumer Protection 

Procedures Act (“the CPPA”), D.C. Code § 28-3901, et seq. Compl. ¶¶ 86-92 [ECF No. 1-1]. 

CAL alleges that the defendants have violated the CPPA by falsely and deceptively marketing 

Hershey’s Rainforest Alliance products as “sustainable” and “responsible.” Compl. at 1. CAL 

seeks only declaratory and injunctive relief; it does not seek monetary damages. Id. at ¶ 19. 

On December 8, 2021, Hershey removed the case from the Superior Court to this Court, 

asserting that jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) because “the parties are completely 

diverse and Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief that, if granted, would cost well in excess of $75,000 

to implement.” See Notice of Removal ¶ 5 [ECF No. 1]; 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (“district courts 

shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the 

sum of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between . . . [c]itizens of different
- 2 -

States.”) On January 21, 2022, CAL moved to remand the case to Superior Court, arguing that 

this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because “Hershey has failed to meet its burden in 

establishing the amount in controversy.” Mem. of P. & A. at 2 [ECF No. 14-1]. CAL also seeks 

to recover its fees and costs associated with litigating the motion to remand. Id. at 11. For the 

reasons that follow, the Court finds that this case should be remanded but declines to award CAL 

its fees and costs associated with removal.

As the removing party, it is Hershey’s burden to demonstrate that the Court has 

jurisdiction over this case. See Toxin Free USA v. J.M. Smucker Co., 507 F. Supp. 3d 40, 43 

(D.D.C. 2020). In the absence of such a showing, the Court is required to remand the case. Id.; 

see also Republic of Venezuela v. Philip Morris, Inc., 287 F.3d 192, 196 (D.C. Cir. 2002) 

(“When it appears that a district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a case that has been 

removed from a state court, the district court must remand the case.”). Here, there is no dispute

that the parties have complete diversity of citizenship. The only issue, then, is whether Hershey 

has met its burden of establishing the amount in controversy. 

In order to calculate the amount in controversy in CPPA actions such as this, courts in 

this District have uniformly held that “the cost of the injunction [to the defendants] must be 

divided pro rata among District of Columbia consumers.” Rasay v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc., No. 

22-cv-449 (BAH), 2022 WL 4300061, at *7 (D.D.C. Sept. 19, 2022) (quoting Earth Island Inst. 

v. BlueTriton Brands, 583 F. Supp. 3d 105, 109 (D.D.C. 2022) (collecting cases)). Allowing 

Hershey to “rely on the total cost of compliance would violate the non-aggregation principle,” 

Toxin Free USA, 507 F. Supp. 3d at 46, which applies here even though CAL is the only 

organizational plaintiff, GMO Free USA v. Burt’s Bees, Inc., No. 22-cv-01227 (DLF), 2022 WL 

16991568, at *1 (D.D.C. Nov. 15, 2022). The Court also reject’s Hershey’s contention that the 
- 3 -

non-aggregation principle does not apply here because “the injunctive relief CAL seeks—a 

wholesale change to Hershey’s business practices—is a ‘common and undivided interest’ with

respect to the injunctions beneficiaries.” Def. Opp’n at 12; see Earth Island Inst. v. Blue Triton 

Brands, 583 F. Supp. 3d. 105 (D.D.C. 2022). Accordingly, the Court finds that the nonaggregation principle applies, and to meet its burden of establishing the amount in controversy

for purposes of subject matter jurisdiction Hershey must demonstrate that its cost of compliance 

with CAL’s requested injunctive relief would exceed $75,000 per District of Columbia 

consumer. Hershey has not even attempted to make that showing.

The non-aggregation rule similarly applies to requests for attorneys’ fees in CPPA cases, 

and Hershey has failed to establish “that the pro rata amount of attorneys’ fees that would be 

attributable to [CAL] as a member of the general public would exceed $75,000.” Earth Island, 

538 F. Supp. 3d at 112. For all of these reasons, Hershey has failed to establish that this case 

satisfies the amount in controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 

Finally, the Court finds that CAL is not entitled to recoup its costs and fees associated

with removal. Pl.’s Mem. of P. & A. at 11-12. “Absent unusual circumstances,” a court can 

require payment of costs and fees associated with removal “only where the removing party 

lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal.” Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 

546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005). “A basis for removal is objectively reasonable when it ‘has at least 

some logical and precedential force.’” Organic Consumers Ass’n v. R.C. Bigelow, Inc., 314 F. 

Supp. 3d 344, 358 (D.D.C. 2018) (quoting Knop v. Mackall, 645 F.3d 381, 383 (D.C. Cir. 

2011)). Here, the Court cannot find that Hershey’s removal was “objectively unreasonable”

absent “clear, controlling case law from the D.C. Circuit.” Earth Island, 538 F. Supp. 3d at 112; 

see also Breathe DC v. Santa Fe Nat’l Tobacco Co., 232 F. Supp. 3d 163, 172 (D.D.C. 2017) 
- 4 -

(“Given the lack of controlling precedent in this Circuit . . . and notwithstanding the thrust of the 

opinions in the district courts in this Circuit, defendants did not lack an ‘objectively reasonable 

basis for removal.’”). 

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby

ORDERED that CAL’s Motion to Remand and for Fees and Costs [ECF No. 14] is 

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. It is 

FURTHER ORDERED that CAL’s motion to remand is GRANTED and the case is 

REMANDED to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. It is 

FURTHER ORDERED that CAL’s request for fees and costs is DENIED. And it is

FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to remand this case to the 

Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

SO ORDERED.

February 5, 2023 ___________________________________ 

 Thomas F. Hogan

 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE