`Class Action Against Filippo Berio and Bertolli Importer Moves Forward

N. America

Class Action Against Filippo Berio and Bertolli Importer Moves Forward

Mar. 2, 2015
Virginia Brown Keyder

Recent News

Rohini Kumar, as read­ers will remem­ber from my ear­lier arti­cle, ini­ti­ated a class action suit against Salov in the North­ern Dis­trict Fed­eral Court of Cal­i­for­nia in July 2014 alleg­ing that Salov, the importer of Fil­ippo Berio olive oil from Italy, com­mit­ted fraud by giv­ing promi­nence on the label of its prod­uct to Imported from Italy’ while min­i­miz­ing noti­fi­ca­tion of the actual ori­gins of the oil.

The plain­tiff also alleged that Salov com­mit­ted fraud by char­ac­ter­iz­ing the oil as extra vir­gin. This fraud entailed both mix­ing refined’ oil with what once may have been extra vir­gin, the com­plaint alleges, and by ensur­ing that even it had been extra vir­gin, it was degraded by the time it reached the con­sumer due to the use of clear pack­ag­ing.
See more: The World’s Best Olive Oils
On Feb 3, 2015, the court denied Salov’s motion to dis­miss Kumar’s claims, basi­cally find­ing that the rea­son­able con­sumer’ could well have been deceived into think­ing the oil was in fact from Ital­ian olives (in spite of the fact that Kumar acknowl­edged hav­ing read the best by’ dates posi­tioned next to the indi­ca­tion of ori­gin) and that the claims for fraud­u­lent label­ing of the oil as extra-vir­gin’ were suf­fi­ciently sub­stan­ti­ated for this stage of the plead­ings.

Three claims that Kumar Lacked Stand­ing Rejected

The Court rejected Salov’s argu­ment that Kumar had no stand­ing to bring the action because, hav­ing become aware of the mis­state­ment, Kumar faced no dan­ger of being fur­ther deceived in the future. Dis­trict Judge Yvonne Gon­za­lez Rogers stated, The pos­si­bil­ity of future injury is alleged suf­fi­ciently if the plain­tiff would encounter the same state­ments today and could not be any more con­fi­dent that they were true.”
See more: Arti­cles on Olive Oil Fraud
Salov’s sec­ond claim that Kumar lacked stand­ing to bring the extra-vir­gin’ fraud claim because she failed to show that the actual bot­tle of olive oil she pur­chased was not in fact extra-vir­gin, and there­fore failed to show injury in fact, was also rejected. The Judge stated that Kumar needed not prove that the par­tic­u­lar bot­tle of oil she pur­chased had, in fact, degraded to the point of not being extra vir­gin,” and quoted Judge See­borg in a com­pan­ion case to the effect that each con­sumer who pur­chases extra vir­gin olive oil, is enti­tled to receive oil that meets that def­i­n­i­tion by design, not by hap­pen­stance.”

Salov’s third claim that Kumar lacked stand­ing because she pur­chased only one prod­uct and brings claims against a range of prod­ucts was also rejected as a mat­ter to be con­sid­ered at the class cer­ti­fi­ca­tion stage, not the plead­ing stage.”

Advertisement

Tar­iff Act Claim

Salov’s claim that Kumar can­not rely on the Tar­iff Act as a basis for her UCL claim because Con­gress has vested exclu­sive enforce­ment author­ity in the U.S. Cus­toms and Bor­der Pro­tec­tion agency”, was also rejected. The Judge relied on a 2014 US Supreme Court hold­ing to the effect that even if a pri­vate plain­tiff is not per­mit­ted to enforce a fed­eral statute or reg­u­la­tion directly, the fed­eral law may form the pred­i­cate for a pri­vate right of action under another fed­eral or state law where the fed­eral law does not expressly pro­hibit such an action.”

Insuf­fi­ciency of Claim of Fraud Rejected

Finally, the Judge rejected Salov’s dis­missal claim that Kumar’s alle­ga­tions of fraud were not suf­fi­ciently sub­stan­ti­ated. She found the claims, which out­line the the who, what, when, where, and how of the mis­con­duct charged,” ade­quate for this stage of the plead­ing.

In Salov’s Favor

The Judge did, how­ever, reject Kumar’s claims for breach of con­tract (find­ing no con­tract existed) and found her claim of breach of covenant of good faith and fair deal­ing insuf­fi­ciently pleaded and there­fore granted Salov’s motion to dis­miss these claims. No per­mis­sion to amend these claims was granted. Salov’s request for judi­cial notice of a Fil­ippo Berio Extra Vir­gin Olive Oil bot­tle label was granted and Salov was given until Feb­ru­ary 24 to file a response. Check back for updates.



Related News