Kraft Heinz Lawsuit Faces Another Attempt at Dismissal

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 plaintiff who got a second chance at pleading her Kraft Heinz class action lawsuit is now facing a second attempt at dismissal.

In a motion filed July 18, plaintiff Suzanne Alaei says defendant Kraft Heinz has been labeling many of its products, including Heinz 57 sauce, as being made in the USA, when in fact those products are either foreign-made or contain ingredients that were sourced outside the U.S. Alaei claims that labeling is a false advertisement that constitutes a violation of California’s Business & Professions Code, Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

Kraft Heinz says Alaei hasn’t presented any evidence to show that the ingredients she takes issue with actually originated outside the U.S. Alaei responds in her current opposition to dismissal that all turmeric in the U.S. is imported, either from India, Thailand or the Pacific islands. She says she plausibly alleges the product’s mustard flour comes from Nepal, India or Canada, and that at least some of the tomato purée may come from Mexico.

In her original Kraft Heinz class action lawsuit filed in January of this year, Alaei claimed she bought a bottle of Heinz 57 Sauce in reliance on its labeling that said it had been made in the USA. She says she later found out that Kraft Heinz products contain certain ingredients that are allegedly foreign-sourced.

Alaei seeks application of the “100 percent” standard under California law. She cites a provision of the California Business & Professions Code that she says “specifically makes it unlawful to misrepresent the origin of a product as ‘Made in the U.S.A.’ when any part of the product is entirely or substantially made outside of the United States.”

That California law was amended effective January 2016 to take a less strict, more business-friendly approach, and Kraft Heinz argues for application of that newer, more lenient standard. Alaei argues the new amendments cannot be retroactively applied to her own purchase from 2015, or to any purchase by a proposed Class Member during the Class period of December 31, 2011 through December 31, 2015.

U.S. District Judge Michael M. Anello dismissed the Kraft Heinz lawsuit once before, in April of this year. He found that Alaei had failed to make allegations specific enough to establish a claim for fraud, and that she did not have standing to sue over Kraft Heinz products that are not substantially similar to the ones she had purchased.

The judge dismissed the claims without prejudice, giving Alaei a chance to fix the deficiencies in her pleadings and submit them again.

Alaei’s proposed plaintiff Class would represent all California persons who between December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2015 purchased a Kraft Heinz product that was labeled as made in the U.S. but was actually made abroad or contained foreign-sourced ingredients.

The plaintiff is represented by attorneys Abbas Kazerounian of Kazerouni Law Group APC and by Joshua B. Swigart of Hyde & Swigart.

The Kraft Heinz “Made In U.S.A” False Labeling Class Action Lawsuit is Suzanne Alaei v. H.J. Heinz Co., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-02961, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.