Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/331054602/Krispy-Kreme-Lawsuit
Timestamp: 2018-12-12 11:11:22
Document Index: 676473422

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1750', '§ 17200', '§ 17500', '§\n25', 'art\n9', '§ 168', '§ 1750', '§\n14', '§ 1761', '§ 1770', '§ 1770', '§ 1780', '§ 1782', '§ 17200', '§17200', '§ 17500', '§ 2313', '§ 2313', '§ 2313', '§ 2314', '§ 2314', '§ 2314', '§ 2314', '§\n10']

Krispy Kreme Lawsuit | Class Action | Misrepresentation
Uploaded by Eater
Jason Saidian vs. Krispy Kreme
Starbucks Underfilled Latte
Burro Bar Opening Menu
Roxy's Central Menu
Chipotle vs Shareholders Opinion
Wahlburgers Lawsuit
Mary Rice Brent Puckett Randall Hallmark, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Ford Motor Company, a Delaware Corporation, Brent Puckett, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated Randall Hallmark, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Ford Motor Company, a Delaware Corporation, 88 F.3d 914, 11th Cir. (1996)
Arturo Arguelles-Romero v. Superior Court
Alzaimer.doc
EJERCICIOS COMPLEXIVO - Docente AnaMariaGuerraTejada.xlsx
Nejmoa0912254.en.id
Grammar 1 - Final 2014.2015 - KEY.pdf
Calidad de Los Tornillos de Acero Al Carbono
Escala Sis Anexo 2
8558_data Penyeldikan Bapuk
si-02288
PS4161PracticaDemanda.doc
53-160-1-PB.pdf
Masih - Parts
Materi Kewirausahaan 6-8
bts idol lyric.docx
ProgramTahunanIPSKelasVIII.doc
373720810-ace3-wks-unit3-pdf.pdf
It All Fades Away - Bridges of Madison County
Ch 6 Intelligent Usage of Internal Combustion.pdf
Medical research has contributed to millions of lives.docx
JOBSHEET PRAKTIKUM AIJ2
Afzal Lokhandwala vs KFC
2017 Michelin Guide - Hong Kong & Macau
IARC Coffee Carcinogenic Study
Michelin Germany 2017
Litchfield Penitentiary Cafeteria Menu
No Tipping Lawsuit
State of Washington vs GMA
Class Action Wendy's Lawsuit
Walmart Parmesan Cheese Lawsuit
Michelin Brazil 2016
Case 2:16-cv-08338-SVW-AFM Document 1 Filed 11/09/16 Page 1 of 32 Page ID #:1
1 Barbara A. Rohr (SBN 273353)
Benjamin Heikali (SBN 307466)
2 FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
3 Los Angeles, CA 90024
4 Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
E-mail: brohr@faruqilaw.com
bheikali@faruqilaw.com
6 Attorneys for Plaintiff Jason Saidian
JASON SAIDIAN, individually and on
11 behalf of all others similarly situated,
1. Violation of California Civil
Code §1750, et seq.
2. Violation of California
Code § 17200, et seq.
KRISPY KREME DOUGHNUTS, INC.,
Case No.: 2:16-cv-08338
3. Violation of California
Code § 17500, et seq.
4. Breach of Express Warranty
6. Common Law Fraud
7. Intentional Misrepresentation
8. Negligent Misrepresentation
10.Quasi-Contract/Unjust
Enrichment/Restitution
Case 2:16-cv-08338-SVW-AFM Document 1 Filed 11/09/16 Page 2 of 32 Page ID #:2
Plaintiff Jason Saidian (“Plaintiff”) by and through his counsel, brings this
2 Class Action Complaint against Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. (“Krispy Kreme” or
3 “Defendant”), on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and alleges upon
4 personal knowledge as to his own actions, and upon information and belief as to
5 counsel’s investigations and all other matters, as follows:
Plaintiff brings this consumer protection and false advertising class
8 action lawsuit against Defendant, based on Defendant’s false and misleading business
9 practices with respect to the marketing and sale of its “Chocolate Iced Raspberry
10 Filled” and “Glazed Raspberry Filled” donuts (“Raspberry Products”), its “Maple
11 Iced Glazed” and “Maple Bar” donuts (“Maple Products”), and its “Glazed Blueberry
12 Cake” donuts and the “Glazed Blueberry Cake” donut holes (“Blueberry Products”)
13 at Krispy Kreme company and franchise stores (collectively referred to as the
14 “Products”).1
At all relevant times, Defendant has formulated, manufactured,
16 marketed, and sold the Raspberry Products under the descriptive product names
17 “Chocolate Iced Raspberry Filled” and “Glazed Raspberry Filled,” representing that
18 the Raspberry Products are filled with actual raspberry.
However, unbeknownst to consumers, the Raspberry Products uniformly
20 do not contain any raspberries.
22 marketed, and sold the Maple Products under the descriptive product names “Maple
23 Iced Glazed” and “Maple Bar,” representing that the Maple Products contain maple
24 syrup or maple sugar.
However, unbeknownst to consumers, the Maple Products uniformly do
26 not contain any maple syrup or maple sugar.
Defined and depicted further infra in paragraph 18-20.
Case 2:16-cv-08338-SVW-AFM Document 1 Filed 11/09/16 Page 3 of 32 Page ID #:3
2 marketed, and sold the Blueberry Products under the descriptive product names
3 “Glazed Blueberry Cake” with imitation blueberries that highly resemble actual
4 blueberries due to their round shape and blue color.
However, unbeknownst to consumers, the Blueberry Products uniformly
6 do not contain any blueberries.
Raspberry, maple, and blueberry are herein individually referred to as a
8 “Premium Ingredient” and collectively referred to as “Premium Ingredients.”
Plaintiff and other consumers purchased the Products, reasonably relying
10 on Defendant’s deceptive representation about the Products, and believing that each
11 of the Products contained its respective Premium Ingredient. Had Plaintiff and other
12 consumers known that the Products did not contain their Premium Ingredients, they
13 would not have purchased the Products or would have paid significantly less for the
14 Products. Therefore, Plaintiff and consumers have suffered injury in fact as a result
15 of Defendant’s deceptive practices.
Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and all
17 others similarly situated.
Plaintiff seeks to represent a California Subclass, a
18 California Consumer Subclass, and a Nationwide Class (defined infra in paragraphs
19 45-48) (together referred to as “Classes”).
Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and other consumers, is seeking damages,
21 restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, and all other remedies the court deems
22 appropriate.
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
25 1332(d)(2)(A) because this case is a class action where the aggregate claims of all
26 members of the proposed Classes are in excess of $5,000,000, exclusive of interests
27 and costs, and Plaintiff, as well as most members of the proposed Classes, which total
Case 2:16-cv-08338-SVW-AFM Document 1 Filed 11/09/16 Page 4 of 32 Page ID #:4
1 more than 100 class members, are citizens of states different from the state of
2 Defendant.
4 has sufficient minimum contacts in California or otherwise intentionally did avail
5 itself of the markets within California, through its sale of the Products in California
6 and to California consumers.
Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(a)(1) because
8 Defendant regularly conducts business throughout this District, and a substantial part
9 of the events and/or omissions giving rise to this action occurred in this District.
Plaintiff Jason Saidian is a citizen of California, residing in Los Angeles
12 County. In 2015, Mr. Saidian purchased, inter alia, the Glazed Raspberry Filled, the
13 Chocolate Iced Raspberry Filled, the Maple Iced Glazed, and the Glazed Blueberry
14 Cake donuts from a Krispy Kreme store in Santa Monica, California. Mr. Saidian
15 purchased the Products, reasonably relying on the Defendant’s representations about
16 the Products and believing that the each of Products he purchased contained its
17 Premium Ingredient, as represented. Mr. Saidian would not have purchased the
18 Products or would have paid significantly less for the Products had he known that the
19 Products did not contain their Premium Ingredients. Mr. Saidian therefore suffered
20 injury in fact and lost money as a result of Defendant’s misleading, false, unfair, and
21 fraudulent practices, as described herein. After Mr. Saidian learned that the Products
22 do not contain their Premium Ingredients, he ceased purchasing and consuming the
23 Products, and retained counsel. Mr. Saidian is likely to purchase the Products in the
24 future if they each were reformulated to include their Premium Ingredients.
Defendant Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. is a corporation incorporated
26 in North Carolina, with its principal place of business in Winston-Salem, North
27 Carolina. Krispy Kreme directly and/or through its agents, formulates, manufactures,
Case 2:16-cv-08338-SVW-AFM Document 1 Filed 11/09/16 Page 5 of 32 Page ID #:5
1 markets, distributes, and sells the Products nationwide, including in California.
2 Krispy Kreme has maintained substantial distribution and sales in this District.
At all relevant times, Defendant has formulated, manufactured, marketed
6 and sold the Products across California and the United States. The Products are sold,
7 inter alia, over the counter at Krispy Kreme company and franchise stores, in at least
8 the following varieties:
Raspberry Products:
Chocolate Iced Raspberry Filled;2
http://krispykreme.com/menu/Doughnuts/Chocolate-Iced-Raspberry-Filled (last visited on
11/09/2016).
Case 2:16-cv-08338-SVW-AFM Document 1 Filed 11/09/16 Page 6 of 32 Page ID #:6
Glazed Raspberry Filled.3
Maple Iced Glazed;4
http://krispykreme.com/menu/Doughnuts/Glazed-Raspberry-Filled (last visited on 11/09/2016).
http://krispykreme.com/menu/Doughnuts/Maple-Iced (last visited on 11/09/2016).
Case 2:16-cv-08338-SVW-AFM Document 1 Filed 11/09/16 Page 7 of 32 Page ID #:7
Maple Bar.5
Blueberry Products:
Glazed Blueberry Cake (doughnuts);6
http://www.birthdaydealsallmonth.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/IMG_20150106_064018.jpg
(last visited on 11/09/2016).
27 6 https://www.krispykreme.com/menu/Doughnuts/Glazed-Blueberry-Cake (last visited on
28 11/09/2016).
Case 2:16-cv-08338-SVW-AFM Document 1 Filed 11/09/16 Page 8 of 32 Page ID #:8
Glazed Blueberry Cake (doughnut holes).7
Defendant markets and sells the Products, inter alia, over the counter at
16 its Krispy Kreme company and franchise stores.
The donuts sold in-store by
17 Defendant are displayed in a tray behind a glass counter, along with a small placard
18 in front of each tray that provides the name of the donut variety. No ingredients list is
19 provided or available to customers in-store. The image below is an example of
20 Defendant’s in store display.8
https://www.krispykreme.com/menu/Doughnuts/Doughnut-Hole-Glazed-Blueberry-Cake (last
26 visited on 11/09/2016).
http://media4.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2016_11/1456591/160314-krispy-kreme-
27 0514_da9154dc5fcbc07731e723facdaa46fd.nbcnews-ux-2880-1000.jpg (last visited on
Case 2:16-cv-08338-SVW-AFM Document 1 Filed 11/09/16 Page 9 of 32 Page ID #:9
The placards for the Raspberry Products say “Chocolate Iced Raspberry
15 Filled” or “Glazed Raspberry Filled.” The placards for the Maple Products say
16 “Maple Iced Glazed” or “Maple Bar.” The placards for the Blueberry Products (both
17 the donut and donut holes) say “Glazed Blueberry Cake.”9
Raspberries are a rich source of Vitamin C, Vitamin K, Potassium, and
19 dietary fiber.10 Furthermore, the nutrient profile of raspberries help fight against
20 cancer, heart and circulatory disease, and age-related decline.11
Maple syrup and maple sugar are premium ingredients added to sweeten
22 food products. Maple syrup is “the liquid food derived by concentration and heat
23 treatment of the sap of the maple tree (Acer) or by solution in water of maple sugar
24 (mapel[sic] concrete) made from such sap.” 21 C.F.R. § 168.140. “Maple syrup
Other variations of Blueberry Products’ names include “Very Blueberry Cake.”
https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/2374?manu=&fgcd=&ds= (last visited on 11/09/2016).
27 11 Britt M. Burton-Freeman et al., Red Raspberries and Their Bioactive Polyphenols:
28 Cardiometabolic and Neuronal Health Links, 7 Advances in Nutrition 44-65 (2016).
Case 2:16-cv-08338-SVW-AFM Document 1 Filed 11/09/16 Page 10 of 32 Page ID #:10
1 contains an abundant amount of naturally occurring minerals such as calcium,
2 manganese, potassium and magnesium.”12 Furthermore, maple syrup is also a source
3 of beneficial antioxidants that “have shown to help prevent cancer, support the
4 immune system, lower blood pressure and slow the effects of aging.”13
Blueberries have the potential to limit the development and severity of
6 certain cancers and vascular diseases, including atherosclerosis, ischemic stroke, and
7 neurodegenerative diseases of aging.14 Research suggests that blueberries are one of
8 the richest sources of antioxidant phytonutrients.15
Consumers pay a premium price for the Products. The Products are each
10 considered “Assorted Variet[y]” products and are uniformly priced higher than the
11 Original Glazed Donut.
The Products do not contain their respective Premium Ingredient
Through its manufacturing, marketing, and sale of the Raspberry
14 Products, Defendant has represented that the Raspberry Products contain actual
15 raspberries. Defendant has named the Raspberry Products “Glazed Raspberry Filled”
16 and “Chocolate Iced Raspberry Filled,” indicating that the Raspberry Products are
17 filled with actual raspberry. Furthermore, as portrayed in paragraph 18(a)-(b), the
18 filling in the Raspberry Products appears to contain raspberries due to its red color
19 and texture.
Through its manufacturing, marketing, and sale of the Maple Products,
21 Defendant has represented that the Maple Products contain actual maple syrup or
22 maple sugar. Defendant has named the Maple Products as “Maple Iced Glazed” and
24 12 http://vermontmaple.org/nutritional-information/ (last visited on 11/09/2016).
Catherine C. Neto, Cranberry and blueberry: evidence for protective effects against cancer and
26 vascular diseases., 51 Molecular Nutrition Food Research 652–64 (2007).
15 Ronald L. Prior et al., Antioxidant Capacity As Influenced by Total Phenolic and Anthocyanin
27 Content, Maturity, and Variety of Vaccinium Species, 46 Journal of Agricultural and Food
28 Chemistry, 2686–93 (1998).
Case 2:16-cv-08338-SVW-AFM Document 1 Filed 11/09/16 Page 11 of 32 Page ID #:11
1 “Maple Bar,” indicating that the Maple Products are glazed with actual maple syrup
2 or maple sugar. Furthermore, as portrayed in paragraph 19(a)-(b), the glazing on the
3 Maple Products appears to contain maple syrup or maple sugar due to its amber color
4 and smooth texture.
Through its manufacturing, marketing, and sale of the Blueberry
6 Products, Defendant has represented that the Blueberry Products contain actual
7 blueberries. Defendant has named the Blueberry Products as “Glazed Blueberry
8 Cake,” indicating that the Blueberry Products contain actual blueberries.
9 Furthermore, as portrayed in paragraph 20(a)-(b), the Blueberry Products contain
10 imitation blueberries, apparent on the inside and outside of the donuts, that resemble
11 actual blueberries or pieces of actual blueberry due to their blue color and round
12 shape.
Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and other consumers, the Raspberry Products
14 do not contain actual raspberries, the Maple Products do not contain actual maple
15 syrup or maple sugar, and the Blueberry Products do not contain actual blueberries.
Exhibit A is Krispy Kreme’s Nutritional Data & Ingredients sheet,
17 which lists the specific ingredients for a number of Defendant’s donuts. 16 Neither
18 maple syrup nor maple sugar is listed as an ingredient in the “Maple Iced” [Maple
19 Iced Glazed] donut. Furthermore, raspberry is not listed an in ingredient in the
20 “Glazed Raspberry Filled” donut. The “Glazed Blueberry Cake” donut likewise does
21 not contain blueberries.
Based on information and belief, the “Maple Bar” donut also does not
23 contain actual maple syrup or maple sugar.
Based on information and belief, the “Chocolate Iced Raspberry Filled”
25 donut also does not contain actual raspberry.
Based on information and belief, the “Glazed Blueberry Cake” donut
16 This information is not available to customers in-store.
Case 2:16-cv-08338-SVW-AFM Document 1 Filed 11/09/16 Page 12 of 32 Page ID #:12
1 holes also do not contain actual blueberries.
To the contrary, the Products contain nutritionally inferior ingredients,
3 such as sugar and corn syrup, along with gums and artificial food coloring used to
4 mimic the texture, shape, and color of the Premium Ingredients, and induce
5 consumers into believing that the Products actually contain the Premium Ingredients.
6 For example, according to Exhibit A, the Blueberry Products contain imitation
7 blueberries (referred to as “blueberry gumbits” by Defendant) which are made from
8 inferior and potentially harmful ingredients such as corn syrup, Blue #2, and Blue #1.
9 Due to their blue color and round shape, the “blueberry gumbits” are inserted
10 strategically on the inside and outside of the Blueberry Products to induce
11 unsuspecting consumers into believing that the Blueberry Products contain actual
Defendant knew or should have known that each of the Products did not
14 contain its respective Premium Ingredient because Defendant and/or its agents
15 formulated and manufactured each of the Products.
Defendant knew or should have known that Plaintiff and other
17 consumers, in purchasing the Products, would rely on Defendant’s representations
18 about the Products and would therefore reasonably believe that the Raspberry
19 Products contain actual raspberry, the Maple Products contain actual maple syrup or
20 maple sugar, and the Blueberry Products contain actual blueberries.
In reasonable reliance on Defendant’s representations, and believing that
22 the Products contain their respective Premium Ingredient, Plaintiff and members of
23 the Classes purchased the Products.
Plaintiff and members of the Classes did not know, and had no reason to
25 know, that the Products do not contain their Premium Ingredient. The Products sold
26 in-store by Defendant are displayed in a tray behind a glass counter, along with a
27 small placard in front of each tray that provides the name of the donut variety. The
Case 2:16-cv-08338-SVW-AFM Document 1 Filed 11/09/16 Page 13 of 32 Page ID #:13
1 Products appear as if they contain the Premium Ingredients. Defendant does not
2 provide consumers with access to information on what ingredients are contained in
3 the Products at the point of sale. Even when consuming the Products, Plaintiff and
4 other consumers cannot easily decipher whether the filling or glazing they are
5 consuming contain actual raspberries, blueberries, or maple ingredients because
6 Defendant has formulated and manufactured the Products in a manner that masks the
7 absence of such ingredients. Furthermore, as evidenced by Exhibit A, a majority of
8 Defendant’s other donuts each contain the premium ingredient(s) advertised in their
9 respective product names. For example, the Glazed “Lemon Filled” donuts contain
10 lemon juice, the “Cinnamon Apple Filled” donuts contain both apple and cinnamon,
11 and the “Glazed Strawberry Filled” donuts contain strawberries.
12 Defendant was not only capable of formulating and manufacturing the Products to
13 include the Premium Ingredients, but also was, or should have been, aware that the
14 Products did not contain their respective Premium
Ingredients and that its
15 representations would deceive unsuspecting consumers.
Because the Products do not contain their respective Premium Ingredient
17 as represented by Defendant and reasonably expected by Plaintiff and consumers,
18 Defendant’s uniform practice regarding the marketing and sale of the Products was
19 and continues to be misleading and deceptive.
Each consumer has been exposed to the same or substantially similar
21 deceptive practice, as (1) each of the Raspberry Products does not contain actual
22 raspberry; (2) each of the Maple Products does not contain actual maple syrup or
23 maple sugar; and (3) each of the Blueberry Products do not contain actual blueberry.
As noted in paragraph 26, Plaintiff and other consumers have paid an
25 unlawful premium for the Products. Plaintiff and other consumers would have paid
26 significantly less for the Products had they known that each of the Products did not
27 contain the Premium Ingredient represented by Defendant. In the alternative, Plaintiff
Case 2:16-cv-08338-SVW-AFM Document 1 Filed 11/09/16 Page 14 of 32 Page ID #:14
1 and other consumers would not have purchased the Products at all had they known
2 that the Products did not contain the Premium Ingredient represented by Defendant.
3 Therefore, Plaintiff and other consumers purchasing the Products suffered injury in
4 fact and lost money as a result of Defendant’s false, unfair, and fraudulent practices,
5 as described herein.
As a result of their misleading business practice, and the harm caused to
7 Plaintiff and other consumers, Defendant should be required to pay for all damages
8 caused to consumers, including Plaintiff. Furthermore, Defendant should be enjoined
9 from engaging in these deceptive practices.
Despite being misled by Defendant, Plaintiff would likely purchase the
11 Products in the future if the Products were reformulated to include the premium
12 characterizing ingredients.
Plaintiff brings this case as a class action that may be properly
15 maintained under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of himself and all
16 persons in the United States, who within the relevant statute of limitations periods,
17 purchased any of the Products at a Krispy Kreme store (“Nationwide Class”).
Plaintiff also seeks to represent a subclass defined as all California
19 residents, who within the relevant statute of limitations periods, purchased any of the
20 Products at a Krispy Kreme store (“California Subclass”).
22 residents, who within the relevant statute of limitations periods, purchased the
23 Products for personal, family, or household purposes at a Krispy Kreme store
24 (“California Consumer Subclass”).
Excluded from the Classes are Defendant, the officers and directors of
26 the Defendant at all relevant times, members of their immediate families and their
27 legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns and any entity in which Defendant
Case 2:16-cv-08338-SVW-AFM Document 1 Filed 11/09/16 Page 15 of 32 Page ID #:15
1 has or had a controlling interest. Any judge and/or magistrate judge to whom this
2 action is assigned and any members of such judges’ staffs and immediate families are
3 also excluded from the Classes. Also excluded from the Classes are persons or
4 entities that purchased the Products for sole purposes of resale.
Plaintiff hereby reserves the right to amend or modify the class
6 definitions with greater specificity or division after having had an opportunity to
7 conduct discovery.
Plaintiff is a member of all Classes.
Numerosity: Defendant has sold millions of units of the Products. The
10 Products are sold at hundreds of Krispy Kreme store locations across the country.
11 Accordingly, members of the Classes are so numerous that their individual joinder
12 herein is impractical. While the precise number of class members and their identities
13 are unknown to Plaintiff at this time, the number may be determined through
14 discovery.
Common Questions Predominate: Common questions of law and fact
16 exist as to all members of the Classes and predominate over questions affecting only
17 individual class members. Common legal and factual questions include, but are not
18 limited to, the following:
Whether the Raspberry Products contain actual raspberries, as
represented by Defendant;
sugar, as represented by Defendant;
Defendant’s representations when purchasing the Products; and
Whether the Maple Products contain actual maple syrup or maple
Whether the Blueberry Products contain actual blueberries, as
Whether Plaintiff and other consumers reasonably relied on
Whether Defendant has violated various consumer protection
Case 2:16-cv-08338-SVW-AFM Document 1 Filed 11/09/16 Page 16 of 32 Page ID #:16
statutes and common laws.
Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Classes he
3 seeks to represent in that Plaintiff and members of the Classes were all exposed to the
4 same or substantially similar false and misleading representations, purchased the
5 Products relying on the uniform false and misleading representations, and suffered
6 losses as a result of such purchases.
Adequacy: Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Classes because
8 his interests do not conflict with the interests of the members of the Classes he seeks
9 to represent, he has retained competent counsel experienced in prosecuting class
10 actions, and he intends to prosecute this action vigorously. The interests of the
11 members of the Classes will be fairly and adequately protected by the Plaintiff and
12 his counsel.
Superiority: A class action is superior to other available means for the
14 fair and efficient adjudication of the claims of the members of the Classes. The size
15 of each claim is too small to pursue individually and each individual Class member
16 will lack the resources to undergo the burden and expense of individual prosecution
17 of the complex and extensive litigation necessary to establish Defendant’s liability.
18 Individualized litigation increases the delay and expense to all parties and multiplies
19 the burden on the judicial system presented by the complex legal and factual issues of
20 this case.
Individualized litigation also presents a potential for inconsistent or
21 contradictory judgments. The class action mechanism is designed to remedy harms
22 like this one that are too small in value, although not insignificant, to file individual
23 lawsuits for.
This lawsuit is maintainable as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil
25 Procedure 23(b)(2) because Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds that are
26 generally applicable to the class members, thereby making final injunctive relief
27 appropriate with respect to all Classes.
Case 2:16-cv-08338-SVW-AFM Document 1 Filed 11/09/16 Page 17 of 32 Page ID #:17
2 Procedure 23(b)(3) because the questions of law and fact common to the members of
3 the Classes predominate over any questions that affect only individual members, and
4 because the class action mechanism is superior to other available methods for the fair
5 and efficient adjudication of the controversy.
Violation of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”),
California Civil Code §§ 1750, et seq.
(for the California Consumer Subclass)
Plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-57 above as if
10 fully set forth herein.
Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of
12 the proposed California Consumer Subclass against Defendant.
The Products are “goods” within the meaning of Cal. Civ. Code §
14 1761(a), and the purchases of such products by Plaintiff and members of the
15 California Consumer Subclass constitute “transactions” within the meaning of Cal.
16 Civ. Code § 1761(e).
Cal. Civ. Code § 1770(a)(5) prohibits “[r]epresenting that goods or
18 services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or
19 quantities which they do not have . . . .” By naming the Products with names indicating
20 the presence of Premium Ingredients, Defendant has represented and continues to
21 represent that each of the Products has a Premium Ingredient which it does not have.
22 Therefore, Defendant has violated section 1770(a)(5) of the CLRA.
Cal. Civ. Code § 1770(a)(9) prohibits “[a]dvertising goods or services
24 with intent not to sell them as advertised.” By advertising the Products with names
25 indicating the presence of Premium Ingredients, and then intentionally not selling the
26 Products to meet the expectations that they contain Premium Ingredients, Defendant has
27 violated section 1770(a)(9) of the CLRA.
Case 2:16-cv-08338-SVW-AFM Document 1 Filed 11/09/16 Page 18 of 32 Page ID #:18
At all relevant times, Defendant knew or reasonably should have known
2 that each of the Products did not contain its Premium Ingredient, and that Plaintiff
3 and other members of the California Consumer Subclass would reasonably and
4 justifiably rely on the representations about the Products in purchasing them.
Plaintiff and members of the California Consumer Subclass reasonably
6 and justifiably relied on Defendant’s misleading and fraudulent representations about
7 the Products when purchasing them. Moreover, based on the very materiality of
8 Defendant’s fraudulent and misleading conduct, reliance on such conduct as a
9 material reason for the decision to purchase the Products may be presumed or
10 inferred for Plaintiff and members of California Consumer Subclass.
Plaintiff and members of the California Consumer Subclass suffered
12 injuries caused by Defendant because they would not have purchased the Products or
13 would have paid significantly less for the Products, had they known that Defendant’s
14 conduct was misleading and fraudulent.
Under Cal. Civ. Code § 1780(a), Plaintiff and members of the California
16 Consumer Subclass seek damages, restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, and
17 all other remedies the court deems appropriate for Defendant’s violations of the
18 CLRA.
Pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 1782, on August 23, 2016, counsel for
20 Plaintiff mailed a notice and demand letter by certified mail, with return receipt
21 requested, to Defendant.17
Defendant received the notice and demand letter on
22 August 26, 2016. On October 6, 2016, counsel for Plaintiff mailed a supplemental
23 notice and demand letter to Defendant.18 Defendant received the notice and demand
24 letter on October 10, 2016. Because Defendant has failed to fully rectify or remedy
25 the damages caused within 30 days after receipt of both notice and demand letters,
26 Plaintiff is timely filing this Class Action Complaint.
See Exhibit “B.”
See Exhibit “C.”
Case 2:16-cv-08338-SVW-AFM Document 1 Filed 11/09/16 Page 19 of 32 Page ID #:19
Violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”),
California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.
(for the California Subclass and California Consumer Subclass)
5 fully set forth herein.
7 the proposed California Subclass and California Consumer Subclass against
UCL §17200 provides, in pertinent part, that “unfair competition shall
10 mean and include unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practices and unfair,
11 deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising . . . .”
Under the UCL, a business act or practice is “unlawful” if it violates any
13 established state or federal law.
Defendant’s false and misleading advertising of the Products therefore
15 was and continues to be “unlawful” because it violates the CLRA, California’s False
16 Advertising Law (“FAL”), and other applicable laws as described herein.
As a result of Defendant’s unlawful business acts and practices,
18 Defendant has unlawfully, unfairly and/or fraudulently obtained money from
19 Plaintiff, and members of both the California Subclass and California Consumer
20 Subclass.
Under the UCL, a business act or practice is “unfair” if the Defendant’s
22 conduct is substantially injurious to consumers, offends public policy, and is
23 immoral, unethical, oppressive, and unscrupulous, as the benefits for committing such
24 acts or practices are outweighed by the gravity of the harm to the alleged victims.
Defendant’s conduct was and continues to be of no benefit to purchasers
26 of the Products, as it is misleading, unfair, unlawful, and is injurious to consumers
27 who rely on the representations about the Products but do not get what they were
Case 2:16-cv-08338-SVW-AFM Document 1 Filed 11/09/16 Page 20 of 32 Page ID #:20
1 expecting. Deceiving consumer about the presence of Premium Ingredients is of no
2 benefit to the consumers, especially when they are paying a premium for the
3 Products. Therefore, Defendant’s conduct was and continues to be “unfair.”
As a result of Defendant’s unfair business acts and practices, Defendant
5 has and continues to unfairly obtain money from Plaintiff, and members of both the
6 California Subclass and California Consumer Subclass.
Under the UCL, a business act or practice is “fraudulent” if it actually
8 deceives or is likely to deceive members of the consuming public.
Defendant’s conduct here was and continues to be fraudulent because it
10 has and will continue to likely deceive consumers into believing that the Products
11 contains the Premium Ingredients, when they do not. Because Defendant misled and
12 will likely continue to mislead Plaintiff and members of both the California Subclass
13 and California Consumer Subclass, Defendant’s conduct was “fraudulent.”
As a result of Defendant’s fraudulent business acts and practices,
15 Defendant has and continues to fraudulently obtain money from Plaintiff, and
16 members of both the California Subclass and California Consumer Subclass.
Plaintiff requests that this Court cause Defendant to restore this
18 unlawfully, unfairly, and fraudulently obtained money to Plaintiff, and members of
19 both the California Subclass and California Consumer Subclass, to disgorge the
20 profits Defendant made on these transactions, and to enjoin Defendant from violating
21 the UCL or violating it in the same fashion in the future as discussed herein.
22 Otherwise, Plaintiff, and members of both the California Subclass and California
23 Consumer Subclass may be irreparably harmed and/or denied an effective and
24 complete remedy if such an order is not granted.
Case 2:16-cv-08338-SVW-AFM Document 1 Filed 11/09/16 Page 21 of 32 Page ID #:21
Violation of California’s False Advertising Law (“FAL”),
California Business & Professions Code §§ 17500, et seq
California’s FAL makes it “unlawful for any person to make or
10 disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the public . . . in any
11 advertising device . . . or in any other manner or means whatever, including over the
12 Internet, any statement, concerning . . . personal property or services professional or
13 otherwise, or performance or disposition thereof, which is untrue or misleading and
14 which is known, or which by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be
15 untrue or misleading.”
Defendant has represented and continues to represent to the public,
17 including Plaintiff and members of both the California Subclass and California
18 Consumer Subclass, that the Products contain Premium Ingredients. Defendant’s
19 representations are false and misleading because the Raspberry Products do not
20 contain raspberry, the Maple Products do not contain maple syrup or maple sugar,
21 and the Blueberry Products do not contain blueberry.
Because Defendant has
22 disseminated false and misleading information regarding their Products, and
23 Defendant knew, or should have known through the exercise of reasonable care, that
24 the information was and continues to be false and misleading, Defendant has violated
25 the FAL and continues to do so.
As a result of Defendant’s false advertising, Defendant has and
27 continues to fraudulently obtain money from Plaintiff and members of both the
Case 2:16-cv-08338-SVW-AFM Document 1 Filed 11/09/16 Page 22 of 32 Page ID #:22
1 California Subclass and California Consumer Subclass.
3 fraudulently obtained money to Plaintiff and members of both the California Subclass
4 and California Consumer Subclass, to disgorge the profits Defendant made on these
5 transactions, and to enjoin Defendant from violating the FAL or violating it in the
6 same fashion in the future as discussed herein. Otherwise, Plaintiff and members of
7 both the California Subclass and California Consumer Subclass may be irreparably
8 harmed and/or denied an effective and complete remedy if such an order is not
9 granted.
California Commercial Code § 2313
14 fully set forth herein.
16 the proposed California Subclass and California Consumer Subclass against
California Commercial Code § 2313 provides that “(a) Any affirmation
19 of fact or promise made by the seller to the buyer which relates to the goods and
20 becomes part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods
21 shall conform to the affirmation or promise,” and “(b) Any description of the goods
22 which is made part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the
23 goods shall conform to the description.” Cal. Com. Code § 2313.
Defendant has expressly warranted that the Raspberry Products contain
25 actual raspberries, that the Maple Products contain actual maple ingredients, and that
26 the Blueberry Products contain actual blueberry. These representations about the
27 Products: (1) are affirmations of fact or promises made by Defendant to consumers
Case 2:16-cv-08338-SVW-AFM Document 1 Filed 11/09/16 Page 23 of 32 Page ID #:23
1 that the Products do in fact contain the Premium Ingredients; (2) became part of the
2 basis of the bargain to purchase the Products; and (3) created an express warranty that
3 the Products would conform to these affirmations of fact or promises.
4 alternative, the representations about the Products are descriptions of goods which
5 were made as part of the basis of the bargain to purchase the Products, and which
6 created an express warranty that the Products would conform to the product
7 descriptions.
Plaintiff and members of both the California Subclass and California
9 Consumer Subclass reasonably and justifiably relied on the foregoing express
10 warranties, believing that that the Products did in fact conform to these warranties.
Defendant has breached the express warranties made to Plaintiff and
12 members of both the California Subclass and California Consumer Subclass by
13 failing to formulate, manufacture, and sell the Products to satisfy those warranties.
15 Consumer Subclass paid a premium price for the Products but did not obtain the full
16 value of the Products as represented. If Plaintiff and members of both the California
17 Subclass and California Consumer Subclass had known of the true nature of the
18 Products, they would not have purchased the Products or would not have been willing
19 to pay the premium price associated with Products.
As a result, Plaintiff and members of both the California Subclass and
21 California Consumer Subclass suffered injury and deserve to recover all damages
22 afforded under the law.
California Commercial Code § 2314
28 fully set forth herein.
Case 2:16-cv-08338-SVW-AFM Document 1 Filed 11/09/16 Page 24 of 32 Page ID #:24
2 the proposed California Subclass and California Consumer Subclass against
3 Defendant.
California Commercial Code § 2314(1) provides that “a warranty that
5 the goods shall be merchantable is implied in a contract for their sale if the seller is a
6 merchant with respect to goods of that kind.” Cal. Com. Code § 2314(1).
Furthermore, California Commercial Code § 2314(2) provides that
8 “[g]oods to be merchantable must be at least such as… (f)[c]onform to the promises
9 or affirmations of fact made on the container or label if any.” Cal. Com. Code §
10 2314(2)(f).
Defendant is a merchant with respect to the sale of doughnuts, including
12 the Products. Therefore, a warranty of merchantability is implied in every contract
13 for sale of the Products to California consumers.
100. In naming the Products using their respective Premium Ingredients,
15 Defendant has provided a promise or affirmation of fact to California, that the
16 Products do in fact contain the Premium Ingredients.
101. However, the Products do not contain the Premium Ingredients that
18 Defendant promises that they contain.
102. Therefore,
20 merchantability in regard to the Products.
103. If Plaintiff and members of both the California Subclass and California
22 Consumer Subclass had known that the Products did not conform to Defendant’s
23 contract descriptions, they would not have purchased the Products, would have
24 purchased less of the products, or would not have been willing to pay the premium
25 price associated with Products.
Therefore, as a direct and/or indirect result of
26 Defendant’s breach, Plaintiff and members of both the California Subclass and
27 California Consumer Subclass have suffered injury and deserve to recover all
Case 2:16-cv-08338-SVW-AFM Document 1 Filed 11/09/16 Page 25 of 32 Page ID #:25
1 damages afforded under the law.
(for the Classes)
104. Plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-57 above as if
6 fully set forth herein.
105. Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of
8 the Classes against Defendant.
106. Defendant has willfully, falsely, and knowingly formulated the Products
10 without the presence of the Premium Ingredients. Contrary to their formulation,
11 however, Defendant has intentionally represented that the Products contain Premium
12 Ingredients. Therefore Defendant has made misrepresentations as to the Products.
107. Defendant’s misrepresentations were material (i.e., the type of
14 misrepresentations to which a reasonable person would attach importance and would
15 be induced to act thereon in making purchase decisions), because they relate to the
16 contents of the Products.
108. Defendant knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that the Products did
18 not in fact contain the Premium Ingredients, as represented.
109. Defendant intended that Plaintiff and others consumers rely on these
20 representations, as evidenced by the appearance of each of the Products as well as
21 Defendant’s simple placard names for each of the Products, without further
22 description of the Products.
Furthermore, Krispy Kreme stores do not provide
23 customers with a readily available list of ingredients for any of their products.
110. Plaintiff and members of the Classes have reasonably and justifiably
25 relied on Defendant’s misrepresentations when purchasing the Products and had the
26 correct facts been known, would not have purchased the Products or would not have
27 purchased them at the prices at which they were offered.
Case 2:16-cv-08338-SVW-AFM Document 1 Filed 11/09/16 Page 26 of 32 Page ID #:26
111. Therefore, as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s fraud,
2 Plaintiff and members of the Classes have suffered economic losses and other general
3 and specific damages, including but not limited to the amounts paid for the Products,
4 and any interest that would have accrued on those monies, all in an amount to be
5 proven at trial.
112. Plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-57 above as if
113. Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of
12 the Classes against Defendant.
114. Defendant has marketed Products in a manner indicating that the
14 Products contain the Premium Ingredients. However, the Products do not contain the
15 Premium Ingredients. Therefore Defendant has made misrepresentations as to the
115. Defendant’s representations regarding the Products are material to a
18 reasonable consumer because they relate to the content of the Products purchased by
19 the consumer.
A reasonable consumer would attach importance to such
20 representations and would be induced to act thereon in making purchase decisions.
116. At all relevant times when such misrepresentations were made,
22 Defendant knew that the representations were false and misleading, or has acted
23 recklessly in making the representations and without regard to the truth.
117. Defendant intends that Plaintiff and others consumers rely on the
25 representations made about the Products, as evidenced by Defendant using the names
26 of the Premium Ingredients in the names of the various Products and then making the
27 Products appear to contain the Premium Ingredients.
Case 2:16-cv-08338-SVW-AFM Document 1 Filed 11/09/16 Page 27 of 32 Page ID #:27
118. Plaintiff and members of the Classes have reasonably and justifiably
2 relied on Defendant’s intentional misrepresentations when purchasing the Products,
3 and had the correct facts been known, would not have purchased the Products or
4 would not have purchased them at the prices at which they were offered.
119. Therefore, as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s intentional
6 misrepresentations, Plaintiff and members of the Classes have suffered economic
7 losses and other general and specific damages, including but not limited to the
8 amounts paid for the Products, and any interest that would have accrued on those
9 monies, all in an amount to be proven at trial.
120. Plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-57 above as if
121. Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of
16 the Classes against Defendant.
122. Defendant has marketed Products in a manner indicating that the
18 Products contain the Premium Ingredients. However, the Products do not contain the
19 Premium Ingredients. Therefore Defendant has made misrepresentations as to the
123. Defendant’s representations regarding the Products are material to a
22 reasonable consumer because they relate to the content of the Products received by
23 the consumer.
24 representations and would be induced to act thereon in making purchase decisions.
124. At all relevant times when such misrepresentations were made,
26 Defendant knew or has been negligent in not knowing that that the representations
27 were false and misleading. Defendant has no reasonable grounds for believing its
Case 2:16-cv-08338-SVW-AFM Document 1 Filed 11/09/16 Page 28 of 32 Page ID #:28
1 representations were not false and misleading.
125. Defendant intended and intends that Plaintiff and others consumers rely
3 on the representations made about the Products, as evidenced by Defendant using the
4 names of the Premium Ingredients in the names of the various Products, and then
5 making the Products appear to contain the Premium Ingredients.
126. Plaintiff and members of the Classes have reasonably and justifiably
7 relied on Defendant’s negligent misrepresentations when purchasing the Products,
8 and had the correct facts been known, would not have purchased the Products or
9 would not have purchased them at the prices at which they were offered.
127. Therefore, as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligent
11 misrepresentations, Plaintiff and members of the Classes have suffered economic
12 losses and other general and specific damages, including but not limited to the
13 amounts paid for the Products, and any interest that would have accrued on those
14 monies, all in an amount to be proven at trial.
128. Plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-57 above as if
19 fully set forth herein.
129. Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of
21 the Classes against Defendant.
130. In purchasing the Products, Plaintiff and members of the Classes have
23 formed valid contracts that are supported by sufficient consideration, pursuant to
24 which Defendant is obligated to provide Raspberry Products that contain actual
25 raspberry, Maple Products that contain actual maple syrup or maple sugar, and
26 Blueberry Products that contain actual blueberry.
131. Defendant materially breached its contracts with Plaintiff and members
Case 2:16-cv-08338-SVW-AFM Document 1 Filed 11/09/16 Page 29 of 32 Page ID #:29
1 of the Classes by selling Raspberry Products that do not contain actual raspberry,
2 Maple Products that do not contain actual maple syrup or maple sugar, and Blueberry
3 Products that do not contain actual blueberry.
132. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breaches, Plaintiff and
5 members of the Classes were damaged in that they received products with less value
6 than the amounts paid. Moreover, Plaintiff and members of the Classes have suffered
7 economic losses and other general and specific damages, including but not limited to
8 the amounts paid for the Products, and any interest that would have accrued on those
Quasi Contract/Unjust Enrichment/Restitution
133. Plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-57 above as if
134. Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of
135. As alleged herein, Defendant intentionally and recklessly made
18 misleading representations about the Products to Plaintiff and members of the Classes
19 to induce them to purchase the Products. Plaintiff and members of the Classes have
20 reasonably relied on the misleading representations and have not received all of the
21 benefits promised by Defendant. Plaintiff and members of the Classes therefore have
22 been induced by Defendant’s misleading and false representations about the Products,
23 and paid for them when they would and/or should not have, or paid more money to
24 Defendant for the Products than they otherwise would and/or should have paid.
136. Plaintiff and members of the Classes have conferred a benefit upon
26 Defendant as Defendant has retained monies paid to them by Plaintiff and members
27 of the Classes.
Case 2:16-cv-08338-SVW-AFM Document 1 Filed 11/09/16 Page 30 of 32 Page ID #:30
137. The monies received were obtained under circumstances that were at the
2 expense of Plaintiff and members of the Classes – i.e., Plaintiff and members of the
3 Classes did not receive the full value of the benefit conferred upon Defendant.
138. Therefore, it is inequitable and unjust for Defendant to retain the profit,
5 benefit, or compensation conferred upon it without paying Plaintiff and the members
6 of the Classes back for the difference of the full value of the benefit compared to the
7 value actually received.
139. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unjust enrichment,
9 Plaintiff and members of the Classes are entitled to restitution, disgorgement, and/or
10 the imposition of a constructive trust upon all profits, benefits, and other
11 compensation obtained by Defendant from its deceptive, misleading, and unlawful
12 conduct as alleged herein.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others
16 similarly situated, seeks judgment against Defendant, as follows:
For an order certifying the Nationwide Class, the California Subclass,
18 and the California Consumer Subclass, under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
19 Procedure; naming Plaintiff as representative of all Classes; and naming Plaintiff’s
20 attorneys as Class Counsel to represent all Classes.
For an order declaring that Defendant’s conduct violates the statutes
22 and laws referenced herein;
For an order finding in favor of Plaintiff, and all Classes, on all counts
asserted herein;
For an order awarding all compensatory and punitive damages,
26 including under the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act on behalf of the
27 California Consumer Subclass, in amounts to be determined by the Court and/or
Case 2:16-cv-08338-SVW-AFM Document 1 Filed 11/09/16 Page 31 of 32 Page ID #:31
1 jury;
For prejudgment interest on all amounts awarded;
For interest on the amount of any and all economic losses, at the
4 prevailing legal rate;
For injunctive relief as pleaded or as the Court may deem proper;
For an order awarding Plaintiff and all Classes their reasonable
9 attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs of suit, including as provided by statute such as
10 under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5; and
For any other such relief as the Court deems just and proper.
By: /s/ Barbara A. Rohr
Barbara A. Rohr, Bar No. 273353
Benjamin Heikali, Bar No. 307466
Telephone: 424.256.2884
Fax: 424.256.2885
Case 2:16-cv-08338-SVW-AFM Document 1 Filed 11/09/16 Page 32 of 32 Page ID #:32
Documents Similar To Krispy Kreme Lawsuit
TemperaturaUploaded by cristobal
Ecological ConceptsUploaded by puskesmas belo
Alzaimer.docUploaded by rifky noviana safitri
EJERCICIOS COMPLEXIVO - Docente AnaMariaGuerraTejada.xlsxUploaded by R Alessa VS