Elmer’s Krazy Glue Slack-Fill Class Action Lawsuit Loses Traction

A Krazy Glue buyer who filed a slack-fill class action lawsuit has lost his bid for Class certification in California federal court.

Lead plaintiff David Spacone alleged in the Elmer’s Krazy Glue slack-fill class action lawsuit that he and other consumers were duped into buying less glue because of a so-called “Stay Fresh” container.

Spacone says that contrary to his impression when buying the package in a local hardware store, the container actually contained a smaller tube of the glue.

While the Elmer’s Krazy Glue slack-fill class action lawsuit alleged that the plaintiff and other consumers wasted valuable time purchasing the tiny tube of glue, U.S. District Court Judge Andre Birotte Jr. found that the plaintiff had not sufficiently established any economic injury.

“Wasted time does not equal lost money or property, so Spacone cannot establish statutory standing,” noted the judge in his order dismissing the Elmer’s Krazy Glue slack-fill class action lawsuit.

The judge indicated that the plaintiff’s transcripts were “thoroughly reviewed” and notes that the plaintiff did not claim that he lost any money or property. “Repeatedly, Spacone testified that he did not lose money or property when he purchased Sanford’s product,” the judge notes.

According to the Elmer’s Krazy Glue slack-fill class action lawsuit, the Stay Fresh container was opaque. The plaintiff claimed that this hid the much smaller, “tiny tube,” of glue that it contained.

Spacone says that he and others expected the container to be full of glue and alleged that Elmer’s had intentionally deceived consumers with “nonfunctional slack-fill.”

Slack-fill refers to empty space included in product packaging. There may be legitimate reasons for slack-fill, such as settling during transport, but slack-fill can be considered nonfunctional if it is excessive.

The Elmer’s Krazy Glue slack-fill class action lawsuit was seeking to represent consumers who purchased the product in the Stay Fresh container. The plaintiff alleged that the container was five times the size of the tube of glue inside.

However, the order dismissing the Elmer’s Krazy Glue slack-fill class action lawsuit notes that the plaintiff does not say he would not have purchased the tiny tube of adhesive had he known the true size.

“Nowhere does Spacone testify that, for example, he would not have purchased that amount of Krazy Glue at the price offered or at all—classic examples of economic injury,” states the judge in his order.

“Instead, he repeatedly denies that he lost money in reliance on Sanford’s alleged misrepresentations, and defined his injury as wasting time in Hollywood traffic. Thus, the Court finds that Spacone cannot establish loss of money or property as necessary to establish standing.”

Judge Birotte also said he could not determine the proposed Class Members sufficiently.

“The Court holds that the proposed class lacks ascertainability, as it includes far too many repeat Krazy Glue purchasers who likely do not share Spacone’s concerns with Sanford’s product,” the judge noted in his order dismissing the Elmer’s Krazy Glue slack-fill class action lawsuit.

The lead plaintiff is represented by Bevin Allen Pike, Robert K. Friedl and Trisha Monesi of Capstone Law APC.

The Elmer’s Krazy Glue Slack-Fill Class Action Lawsuit is David Spacone v. Sanford LP, Case No. 2:17-cv-02419, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.