Clark v. The Hershey Company

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaNovember 15, 20193:18-cv-06113California2,504 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

INTRODUCTION

18 In this food-mislabeling case, defendant moves for summary judgment to dismiss all 19 20 plaintiffs’ claims. For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED.

STATEMENT

21 Defendant The Hershey Company sells small ball-shaped dark chocolates with a fruit- 22 flavored center called “Brookside Dark Chocolate.” Each of the Brookside products at issue in 23 this action are sold in packages with labels that represent the product is made with “No 24 Artificial Flavors.” These products contain malic acid, a synthetic chemical (SAC ¶¶ 6, 18). 25 Plaintiff Howard Clark purchased the Brookside Dark Chocolate Acai & Blueberry 26 Flavored Product between April and July 2018. Plaintiff Todd Hall purchased the Brookside 27 Dark Chocolate Pomegranate Flavored Product, the Brookside Dark Chocolate Acai & 28 1 Product from around 2014 until approximately June 2018. Plaintiff Angela Pirrone purchased 2 Brookside Dark Chocolate Acai & Blueberry Flavored Product and the Brookside Dark 3 Chocolate Pomegranate Flavored Product from approximately March 2014 to August 2018 4 (SAC ¶¶ 63, 67, 71). Based on these facts, plaintiffs allege defendant’s Brookside Dark 5 Chocolate…

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.