Mars Chocolate Labeling Class Action Lawsuit Put on Ice

On Wednesday, a California federal judge granted a motion filed by Mars Inc. to stay a chocolate labeling class action lawsuit until the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reaches a decision in a similar case.

Plaintiff Phyllis Gustavson initially filed the chocolate labeling class action lawsuit it April 2012 against Wrigley Sales Co. She later added Mars Inc. as a defendant and eventually agreed to pursue her claims against each defendant separately.

Gustavson alleges Mars misleads consumers by making misleading calorie claims about some of its chocolate products. She alleges that nearly 50 Mars chocolate products are deceptively packaged and labeled in violation of California law.

In June, U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh rejected a motion by Mars to dismiss the chocolate labeling class action lawsuit. Mars filed a motion for stay pending the 9th Circuit’s decision in the pending misbranding class action lawsuit, Jones v. ConAgra Foods Inc.

In Jones, the plaintiffs allege ConAgra mislabeled and misbranded its canned tomatoes, cooking spray and hot cocoa products in violation of California and federal law. After a district court judge refused to certify a Class in that class action lawsuit, the plaintiff filed an appeal.

Mars argues that a stay is necessary because the 9th Circuit’s ruling on the Jones class action lawsuit may provide insight for the chocolate labeling lawsuit. Gustavson argued that the stay would postpone any recovery of injunctive relief or other damages.

Judge Koh was unpersuaded by Gustavson’s argument, finding that she had not been subjected to procedural delay. The judge agreed with Mars’s assertion that the possibility of a delay in obtaining financial or injunctive relief is an inadequate reason to deny a stay, especially at this early stage of the litigation. Further, any possible relief would be unlikely to be determined prior to the 9th Circuit’s decision in the Jones class action lawsuit.

“More specifically, [Mars] argues that even if the Court were to deny a stay, a decision in Jones would precipitate another round of class certification or decertification motions and a re-opening of discovery, all of which would take place prior to any injunctive relief,” Judge Koh wrote. “Therefore, whether or not the Court grants Defendant’s motion to stay, any prospective injunctive relief will be delayed.”

Judge Koh concluded that the arguments in favor of the stay outweighed those against it, and that “it would best serve the interests of the parties and judicial economy to grant Defendant’s motion to stay these proceedings.”

Also on Wednesday, Judge Koh granted Gustavson’s motion to dismiss the flavanol nutrient content claims and the claims arising from Mars’s alleged failure to refer to polyglycerol polyricinoleic acid by its common name.

The Mars Chocolate Labeling Class Action Lawsuit is Phyllis Gustavson v. Mars Inc., et al., Case No. 13-cv-04537-LHK, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division.