Smucker False Labeling Class Action Lawsuit Denied Certification

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 federal judge has denied certification of a putative class action lawsuit claiming that Smucker’s Uncrustables and Crisco shortening products are falsely labeled, deciding that incomplete damage calculations were fatal to the attempts by lead plaintiff Lucina Caldera and other consumers who argued the food products were less than healthy.

Lead plaintiff Lucina Caldera alleged in the Smucker class action lawsuit that the packaging of these products misleads consumers into believing that they are healthful, when in reality they both contain trans fat and Uncrustables also contains high fructose corn syrup. Consuming these ingredients can lead to heart disease, type-2 diabetes, chronic inflammation, and certain types of cancer, according to the class action lawsuit.

The Smucker class action lawsuit cited the Sherman Act which allows for private citizens to take action when food and beverage mislabeling occurs and contradicts the regulations promulgated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Caldera used that as the predicate violation that would allow for a count of violating the state’s Unfair Competition Law on Smucker products Crisco Original Shortening, Crisco Butter Flavor Shortening and certain Uncrustables Sandwiches.

However, while many similar class action lawsuits argue that the products hold no value because they are illegal, U.S. District Judge George King did not think that things were that simple in the Smucker class action lawsuit He wrote that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently pleaded the Rule 23 standards for class certification primarily based on their damages calculation.

Smucker argued that Caldera “has failed to satisfy the predominance requirement because she has not identified any method of proving damages on a classwide basis, and thus determining damages will involve individualized inquiries that predominate over common questions.” Full restitution of the purchase price for all of the Class Members would not make sense because during deposition testimony, some admitted that they “undeniably received some benefit from the products,” Judge King wrote.

If that is the case, then the financial calculations must account for the remaining value. Instead, the judge wrote that the class action lawsuit attorneys did not offer “any evidence, let alone expert testimony, that damages can be calculated based on the difference between the market price and true value of the products” and as such cannot create a reasonable estimate of classwide redress regarding the Smucker false advertising claims based on violations of the Sherman Act, Unfair Competition Law, among other statutes. Further, “the true value of the products to consumers likely varies depending on individual consumer’s motivation for purchasing the products.”

The plaintiffs had sought certification of four sub-classes, divided into two per product category for Uncrustables. Judge King also refused to certify two sub-classes seeking injunctive relief, forcing the company to remove the allegedly false advertising claims. He noted that the motion “does not explain why certification of her injunctive claims … would be appropriate.” However, he offered Caldera the opportunity to amend the class action lawsuit per the injunctive relief action as the sole plaintiff.

The plaintiffs are represented by class action lawsuit attorneys Gregory Weston, Jack Fitzgerald, Melanie Persinger and Paul Joseph of The Weston Firm and Ronald Marron, Skye Resendes and Alexis Wood of Law Office of Ronald A. Marron APLC.

The Smucker False Labeling Class Action Lawsuit is Lucina Caldera, et al. v. The J.M. Smucker Co., Case No. 12-cv-04936, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.