Lucido

ORDER (1) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; (2) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO EXCLUDE THE EXPERT REPORT, OPINIONS, AND TESTIMONY OF DR. QUESTEN AND DR. TEGZES; AND (3) DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD AND MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME

Plaintiffs have filed a class action against Defendant Nestle Purina Petcare *1101 Co. (“Purina”) for “failftng] to disclose that Beneful dog food contains Industrial Grade Glycols, which are not approved for use in food, mycotoxins [a group of toxins produced by fungus that occurs in grains], lead, and/or arsenic.” 1 SAC ¶ 1; see also SAC ¶¶ 32-36. The claims asserted include breach-of-warranty claims (express and implied), claims for violation of state consumer protection statutes, and claims for unjust enrichment. Altogether, there are 78 claims impheating federal law and the laws of 15 different states. It appears that Plaintiffs are limiting their damages to the difference in value between what Beneful was purportedly worth and what Beneful was actually worth. See, e,g,, SAC ¶ 65 (alleging that consumers would not have paid any money for Beneful “had they known it contained Industrial…