Gitson
Gitson v. Trader Joe's Co.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Chhabria, J.
Re: Dkt. Nos. 74,
ORDER
Plaintiffs Amy Gitson and Deborah Ross bring this -putative class action against Defendant Trader Joe’s Company (“Trader Joe’s”), alleging that several Trader Joe’s food products are misleadingly labeled. On March 24, 2014, Trader Joe’s moved to certify the Court’s March 14, 2014 order for interlocutory appeal. (Docket No. 74). And on'April 24, 2014, Trader Joe’s moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ third amended complaint. (Docket No. 82). In connection with these motions, the Court ordered supplemental briefing on whether the plaintiffs may pursue their California law claims on behalf of a. nationwide class. (Docket No. 93).
DISCUSSION
A. Nationwide Class Claims
After reviewing the parties’ briefs, the Court finds that the class allegations should not be stricken at this stage. The allegations in this case are similar to those at issue in Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir.2012). As explained in that decision, there are substantial differences among state consumer protection laws. See id. at 591 . And based on Mazza’s reasoning, the state in which a food product was purchased has the greatest interest in applying its law to…