Since it was founded in 2007, the Weston Firm has had a history of success in protecting consumers, including the following:
Hawkins v. The Kroger Co., No. 16-55532 (Ninth Cir.) - The firm represented consumers who purchased bread crumbs that contained trans fat, but advertised that they contained "0g Trans Fat." In its October 4, 2018 published opinion, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court, finding that the front label was subject to different regulations than the nutrition label. Therefore, statements about fat on the front label were required to be truthful and not misleading, and statements about trans fat did not fall under any of the enumerated exceptions under that rule.
Garcia v. Iovate Health Services USA, Inc., No. 1402915 (Santa Barbara Superior Court)
-The firm represented consumers in an action alleging Defendant fraudulently marketed ineffective weight loss supplements. As a result of a class-wide settlement, Defendant agreed to modify its labeling claims and provide the class with $8 million in monetary relief.
Guttmann v. Ole Mexican Foods, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-4845-HSG (N.D. Cal.)
-The firm was class counsel for consumers who alleged the claims made on Defendant’s tortilla products were deceptive in light of the products’ trans fat content. The Weston Firm was appointed Class Counsel and obtained a settlement which was approved preliminarily. Plaintiff obtained final approval on August 1, 2016.
In re Quaker Oats Labeling Litigation, No. 5:10-cv-502-RS (N.D. Cal.)
-The firm was class counsel for consumers who alleged the claims made on Defendant’s oatmeal and granola bar products were deceptive in light of the products’ trans fat content. The Weston Firm was appointed Class Counsel and obtained a settlement that provided the class with injunctive relief in the form of complete trans fat removal and labeling changes.
Rosen et al. v. Unilever United States, Inc., No. 5:09-cv-2563-JW (N.D. Cal)
-The Weston Firm was class counsel for purchasers of soft spread and stick margarine products containing artificial trans fat. As a result of a class-wide settlement, Defendant agreed to remove artificial trans fat from about forty products.
In re Nucoa Real Margarine Labeling Litigation, No. 2:10-cv-927-MMM (C.D. Cal.) - The firm was sole class counsel for margarine consumers who alleged the claims made on Defendant’s Nucoa Margarine products were deceptive in light of the products’ trans fat content. The Weston Firm was appointed Class Counsel and obtained a settlement that provided the class with injunctive and monetary relief.
In re Ferrero Litigation, No. 3:11-cv-205-HSC (S.D. Cal.) - The firm was class counsel for Nutella consumers who alleged Defendant engaged in deceptive labeling and marketing practices. The settlement provided the class with injunctive and monetary relief.
In re Qunol CoQ10 Liquid Labeling Litigation, No. 8:11-cv-173-DOC (C.D. Cal.) - The firm was class counsel for consumers of a nutrition supplement. After prevailing on a nationwide California-law class certification motion, then a motion to decertify, and about one month before trial, the class obtained a settlement providing for injunctive relief and restitution.
Gallucci, et al. v. Boiron, Inc. et al., No. 3:11-cv-2039-JAH (S.D. Cal.) - The firm was class counsel for consumers of homeopathic drug products in an action against Boiron, Inc., a leading manufacturer of homeopathic products. Plaintiffs alleged Boiron’s labeling and advertising were misleading. The firm obtained a nation-wide settlement for the class which provided injunctive relief and restitution.
Adachi, et al. v. Carlyle/Galaxy San Pedro L.P., No. 09-cv-793-MMM (C.D. Cal.) - The firm was appointed sole class counsel to represent purchasers of approximately 145 Los Angeles condominiums, which resulted in a class-wide all-cash settlement of approximately $1.3 million.
In re Apple & AT&T iPad Unlimited Data Plan Litigation, No. 5:10-cv-2553-RMW (N.D. Cal.) - The firm was class counsel for consumers who purchased Apple iPad’s with data plans through AT&T. Plaintiffs alleged Defendants’ advertising and representations regarding iPads violated the Unfair Competition Law. Plaintiffs obtained a class-wide settlement which provided monetary and injunctive relief.
Artificial Trans Fat Ban, No. 2:13-cv-02180 (C.D. Ill.); FDA Docket No. 2013–N–1317
- The firm represented University of Illinois scientist Dr. Fred Kummerow in his efforts to ensure artificial trans fat is removed from the food supply. Following years of FDA inaction on the issue, the firm, as sole counsel for Dr. Kummerow, filed a suit against the FDA under the Administrative Procedures Act. Three months after the suit was filed, the FDA provided notice that it had determined that artificial trans fat should be removed from the food supply. On June 17, 2015, the FDA finally determined that artificial trans fat was not safe for use in food.
Reid v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., No. 12-56726 (9th Cir.) - The firm represented a consumer in his action against the manufacturer of Benecol Spread, alleging health claims on the product’s packaging and advertising were deceptive in light of the product’s trans fat content. The district court initially granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ruling Defendants’ “No Trans Fat” and “No Trans Fatty Acids” claims were preempted by federal law. Plaintiff appealed the order, and in March 2015, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district Court’s preemption dismissal, determining that Plaintiff’s claims with respect to “No Trans Fat” and “No Trans Fatty Acids” were not preempted. The parties then reached a confidential settlement.
Henderson v. The J.M. Smucker Company, No. 2:10-cv-4524-GHK (C.D. Cal.) - This action was the catalyst forcing the defendant to reformulate a children’s frozen food production to remove trans fat. On June 19, 2013, the Honorable George H. King held the firm’s client was a prevailing Private Attorney General and entitled to her costs and attorneys’ fees.
Red, et al. v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., et al, No. 2:10-1028-GW (C.D. Cal) - The firm represented consumers in their action against one of the world’s largest food companies and was appointed lead counsel in a consolidated putative class action. The action resulted in a permanent injunction barring the use of deceptive health claims on Nabisco packaged foods containing artificial trans fat and an award of attorneys’ fees.
Golden v. American Pro Energy, No. 5:16-cv-891-MWF (C.D. Cal.) - The firm was appointed Class Counsel in an action alleging a solar panel company willfully used automatic telephone dialing equipment to solicit business in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq.
In re Cobra Sexual Energy Sales Practices Litigation, No. 2:13-cv-5942-AB (C.D. Cal.); No. 15-56423 (9th Cir.) - The firm is Class Counsel in an action alleging Defendant fraudulently markets a purported male sexual enhancement supplement as a safe and effective aphrodisiac. After Plaintiff obtained an order granting class certification, Defendant successfully moved to decertify the class. Plaintiff successfully petitioned to appeal the order decertifying the class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f). On September 15, 2017, the Ninth Circuit issued an order reversing the decertification.
Sandoval v. PharmaCare U.S., Inc., No. 3:15-cv-738-H-JLB; No. 16-56301 (9th Cir.)/Kanfer v. PharmaCare U.S., Inc., No. 3:15-cv-120-H-JLB; No. 16-56710 (9th Cir.) - The firm is counsel for Plaintiffs in two related actions alleging Defendant fraudulently markets a purported male sexual enhancement supplement as a safe and effective aphrodisiac. After the district court issued orders granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants in each of the actions, Plaintiffs appealed. On May 31, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued an order reversing the district court’s summary judgment rulings and remanded the case for further proceedings.