Judge Urged to Toss Rachael Ray’s Nutrish Dog Food Class Action

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.

Ainsworth Pet Nutrition LLC (APN), the maker of popular celebrity cook Rachael Ray’s brand of dog food “Nutrish,” argued that a class action alleging the food is falsely labeled as “natural” should be dismissed because the label meets with all regulations.

Lead plaintiff Christina Grimm alleged in her class action lawsuit that Nutrish, a dog food hawked by celeb chef and TV host Rachael Ray, cannot be considered “natural” as labeled because the food contains synthetic ingredients and harmful additives.

APN, the company that manufactures Nutrish, shot back arguing that the ingredients the plaintiff names in her class action are actually vitamins. APN also argues that the class action failed to establish how the “natural” and “no artificial preservatives” labels violate the law.

“Plaintiff, through this lawsuit, demonstrates that she is uninhibited by the law and asks this court to also put blinders on and bless this unmeritorious class action,” contends APN in its motion to dismiss the case. “In particular, plaintiff implausibly claims that defendant’s use of the word ‘natural’ on its premium dog food labeling is misleading even though defendant’s labeling complies with the Association of American Feed Control Officials pet food guidelines, which California has specifically adopted.”

According to APN’s motion, the ingredients that the class action claims are unnatural are actually vitamins and the company accounts for these additives in the label. “[P]laintiff brings a lawsuit based on the central claim that the word ‘natural’ on the labeling is misleading because the food actually contains three added vitamins — ingredients which plaintiff calls ‘chemicals’ — despite the fact that the label clearly states ‘Natural Food for Dogs with Added Vitamins & Minerals.’”

APN also contends that the plaintiff’s claim that one particular additive is problematic because it was associated with cancer in a 2007 study should be dumped because Nutrish does not contain that additive.

The plaintiff also did not follow the rules under California consumer laws, says APN. Under current law, consumers must let companies know about a problem with their product before bringing the matter to the court. The plaintiff sent a letter, but only included five of the now 18 products that the class action claims are based on, says APN.

Additionally, contends APN, the plaintiff cannot represent the proposed Class because she did not purchase all of the products the class action claims are mislabeled. Further, notes APN in its motion, the proposed Class of consumers would not have been misled by the label because it clearly indicates vitamins were added to the Nutrish dog food.

APN also argues that damages were labeled as “punitive,” but the class action complaint did not contain any rationale to back up the claim for punitive damages.

Grimm is represented by Brian J. Robbins, Kevin A. Seely and Leonid Kandinov of Robbins Arroyo LLP, Robert K. Shelquist and Rebecca A. Peterson of Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP and Conrad B. Stephens of Stephens & Stephens LLP.

The Rachael Ray Nutrish Dog Food Class Action Lawsuit is Christina Grimm v. APN Inc., et al., Case No. 8:17-cv-00356, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.