Brower

Brower v. Campbell Soup Co.

Good Law
243 F. Supp. 3d 1124·2017 WL 1063470·2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40792
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaMarch 21, 2017Case No.: 3:16-cv-01005-BEN-JLBCalifornia2,374 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Honbenitez, J.

ORDER:

(1)GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 17);

(2)DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (ECF No. 18);

(3)DENYING CROSS-MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (ECF No. 20)

Plaintiffs Harold Brower and Melinda Ferguson (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) allege that Defendant Campbell Soup Company’s (“Defendant” or “Campbell Soup") Chunky Healthy Request Grilled Chicken & Sausage Gumbo is falsely and misleadingly labeled and advertised as healthy when, in fact, it contains artificial trans fat, a substance harmful to human health. (Am. Compl., ECF No. 16). Now before the Court are three motions: (1) Defendant Campbell Soup’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) (ECF No. 17); (2) Campbell Soup’s Motion for Sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 against Jack Fitzgerald and the Law Office of Jack Fitzgerald, PC (ECF No. 18); and (3) Plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions against Campbell Soup, Dale Giali, and Kirstin Mazzeo (ECF No. 20). Campbell Soup’s primary argument in its motion to dismiss is that Plaintiffs’ claims are preempted by federal law. The Rule 11 motions arise from…

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.