Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.
Last week a California federal judge remanded a class action lawsuit alleging Bumble Bee Foods LLC misrepresented some of its tuna products as “rich in Omega-3” to Santa Clara Superior Court.
Plaintiff Tricia Ogden filed the original Bumble Bee class action lawsuit in 2012, claiming that the San Diego-based food company’s products that were labeled as an “excellent source of Omega-3” or “rich in natural Omega-3” were misbranded. Ogden alleged that some of Bumble Bee’s canned food products contained a label with the allegedly false claims, which could mislead consumers into believing the foods are healthy and do not contribute to health conditions.
In January, Bumble Bee motion for summary judgment was granted in part after the judge found Ogden failed to provide sufficient evidence that she was entitled to restitution under the Fair Advertising Law (FAL), Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and Unfair Competition Law (UCL), or that she was entitled to disgorgement under the UCL and FAL. The court also granted summary judgment on Ogden’s one federal claim. However, the court found Ogden was entitled to pursue injunctive relief.
With no remaining federal claims in Ogden’s class action lawsuit, the judge determined that the federal court no longer had jurisdiction and should be handled in state court. Ogden withdrew her motion to certify a nationwide Class for the Bumble Bee class action lawsuit and the parties agreed to a voluntary dismissal.
Subsequently, a second Bumble Bee class action lawsuit limited only to California consumers was filed in Santa Clara Superior Court by plaintiffs Patrick Garrett, Jeff Mains and Linda Eustice. They each claimed to have purchased at least $25 worth of Bumble Bee’s allegedly misbranded food products over the last six years. They claim that the Omega-3 statements and the logo indicating the products have been endorsed by the American Heart Association constitute false, misleading and unlawful statements about the Bumble Bee products.
Although Bumble Bee sought to have the case heard in California federal court, the plaintiffs argued they had pleaded no claims under federal law and therefore the case should be heard in Superior Court. U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh agreed and remanded the Bumble Bee class action lawsuit to Santa Clara Superior Court. She did so over Bumble Bee’s assertion that California law had adopted federal legislation regarding product labeling into state law; therefore, there was a federal question involved in the litigation.
“Bumble Bee, however, has failed to show that the federal issue in this case is sufficiently “substantial” to warrant the exercise of federal jurisdiction,” Judge Koh wrote. “With no federal statutory hook to maintain jurisdiction here, the Corut finds that the ‘congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities’ tips in favor of remanding.”
The California Bumble Bee Omega-3 Class Action Lawsuit is Patrick Garrett, et al. v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, Case No. 5:12-cv-02546-LHK, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING
Top Class Actions is a Proud Member of the American Bar Association
LEGAL INFORMATION IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE
Top Class Actions Legal Statement
©2008 – 2024 Top Class Actions® LLC
Various Trademarks held by their respective owners
This website is not intended for viewing or usage by European Union citizens.
4 thoughts onBumble Bee Omega-3 Class Action Lawsuit Sent to Calif. State Court
Add me.
Add me
Add me to your list from Arizona. I have been a Bumble Bee user for many years. Still am.
The city of canton ohio demolished our house without notifying us my mail I
or any means then sent usa bill for 7800 dollars I just tore it up