Hendricks

Hendricks v. Starkist Co.

Good Law
30 F. Supp. 3d 917·2014 WL 1244770·2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41523
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMarch 25, 2014Case No.: 13-cv-729 YGRCalifornia7,768 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Rogers, J.

Order Granting In Part And Denying In Part Motion to Dismiss; Denying Motion For Leave To File Amicus Declaration

(Dkt. No. 21, 32)

Plaintiff Patrick Hendricks brings this putative class action against Defendant *922 StarKist Co. (“Starkist”). Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief on the grounds that four of StarKist’s canned tuna products are underfilled and, thus, substantially underweight. Plaintiff alleges claims for breach of express and implied warranties (Counts I, II, and III), unjust enrichment (Count IV), negligent misrepresentation (Count VIII), and fraud (Count IX), as well as violations of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), Cal. Civil Code section 1750 et seq., Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof.Code section 17200 et seq., and False Advertising Law (“FAL”), Cal. Bus & Prof.Code section 17500 (Counts V-VII).

StarKist has filed a Motion to Dismiss on several grounds: (1) federal preemption under the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”); (2) the primary jurisdiction doctrine; (3) failure to sufficiently plead claims for breach of express and implied warranties; (4) failure to plead fraud with particularity; (5)…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.