Dog Owners Want Beneful Class Action Certified

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.

A group of dog owners wants a California federal judge to certify a class action lawsuit filed against Nestle Purina Petcare Company alleging that its dog food Beneful is toxic to dogs.

The more than two dozen plaintiffs from a total of 15 states are looking to represent 15 classes and 15 subclasses representing their respective states including: California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and Washington.

The main state classes proposed in the motion to certify the class filed on July 1 are for all the residents in their respective states who purchased Beneful for three to six years before the Beneful class action lawsuit was first filed on Feb. 5, 2015.

The sub-classes from each of the 15 states are for those dog owners who purchased Beneful for their dogs and “who incurred out of pocket costs resulting from internal organ distress, injury, failure, or death resulting from these conditions, after their dog ingested Beneful at any time during” the same period prior to when the lawsuit was first filed in February.

The plaintiffs say that the potential Class Members number in the thousands, which satisfies the numerosity requirement needed for a class action. The Class Members are also making similar claims against Purina about Beneful. The claims also come from the same alleged course of conduct by Purina, which the plaintiffs say satisfies the typicality requirement for class actions. In addition, there are more common issues than individual issues.

“This case is particularly well-suited for class certification because it involves common legal questions regarding the same central and overarching allegation, to wit: Purina manufactured, marketed, sold, and distributed Beneful, a product that it failed to disclose contained toxic and poisonous ingredients. Purina also made affirmative misrepresentations about Beneful’s health benefits, all the while failing to warn Plaintiffs about the hazardous product, which has caused the death or illness of Plaintiffs’ dogs,” the motion for class certification says.

This Beneful class action lawsuit was first filed in February by plaintiff Frank Lucido, who claimed that the Beneful dog food made by Purina made two of his three dogs extremely ill and caused his third dog to die.

According to the Beneful class action lawsuit, there have been more than 3,000 complaints posted by dog owners on the internet “about dogs becoming ill, in many cases very seriously ill, and/or dying after eating Beneful.”

The symptoms reported by the dog owners who claim that Beneful made their dogs ill included “stomach and related internal bleeding, liver malfunction or failure, vomiting, diarrhea, dehydration, weight loss, seizures, bloating, and kidney failure.”

The Beneful class action lawsuit claims that the dog food allegedly contains propylene glycol, which is “an automotive component that is a known animal toxin and is poisonous to cats and dogs.”

In addition, the Beneful dog food also allegedly includes mycotoxins, which are “a group of toxins produced by fungus that occurs in grains, which are a principle ingredient in Beneful.”

The Beneful dog food class action lawsuit is charging Nestle Purina with breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, strict products liability, violating California’s consumer legal remedies act, violating California’s Unfair Competition Law, and violating California’s False Advertising Law.

Purina responded to the allegations in the class action lawsuit in June, saying that the presence of propylene glycol and mycotoxins in Beneful dog food, are both “regulated and expressly permitted in dog food,” and “any claim by plaintiff challenging their presence in dog food is barred by California’s safe harbor doctrine.”

Purina also called the Beneful class action lawsuit, “lawsuit-by-social-media.”

Purina denies the allegations and has issued the following statement:

The full statement from Purina can be read here.

Plaintiffs are represented by Beth E. Terrell, Michael F. Ram and Jeffrey B. Cereghino of Ram Olson Cereghino & Kopczynski.

Purina is represented by Dale J. Giali, Keri E. Borders, Andrea M. Weiss, Carmine R. Zarlenga of Mayer Brown LLP.

The Beneful Dog Food Class Action Lawsuit is Frank Lucido et al v. Nestle Purina Petcare Co., Case No. 3:15-cv-00569, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

UPDATE: On Nov. 17, 2016, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen granted summary judgment to Purina, rejecting testimony from the plaintiffs’ expert that suggested Beneful dog food was the direct cause of their dogs’ illnesses or deaths.