Paschoal

Paschoal v. Plum, PBC

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaSeptember 15, 20224:21-cv-07029California5,122 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. BACKGROUND

22 A. Factual Background 23 According to the First Amended Complaint, Defendants produce and sell baby food 24 pouches intended for children 6 months and up under the brand name “Plum Organics.” See Dkt. 25 No. 24 (“FAC”) ¶¶ 16-17, 34-36. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Sun-Maid acquired the Plum 26 Organics brand from Defendant Campbell in May 2021, and that Defendant Campbell had 27 acquired the brand in May 2013. Id. at 2 n.1. Plaintiffs Rafael Paschoal, Lisa Chong, and Adina Ringler are consumers in California who allege that they were deceived into buying Defendants’ products and paying a premium for them. Id. ¶¶ 4-7, 53, 60, 66. Plaintiffs allege that Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) regulations prohibit companies from making any “nutrient content claims” on food packaging “intended specifically for use by infants and children less than 2 years of age.” See id. ¶ 23. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ “Plum Organics” baby food pouches (the “Products”) are intended for children under two years old and that the product packaging includes unlawful nutrient content claims. Id. ¶¶ 16-17; see also Dkt. No. 27-1 Ex.…

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.