In This Issue:

- Recent Significant Developments and Rulings

..Court Strikes Class Allegations Against Nestle as a Matter of Law

..Complaint that Fails to Specify Products or Marketing Statements Dismissed

..Complaint Dismissed for Lack of Specificity in Product, Representations, and Reliance

..California Federal Court Allows “Antioxidants” Class Complaint to Move Forward

..Uncertainty About Future FDA Regulation Leads Court to Deny Conagra’s Stay Petition

..Court Grants Preliminary Approval to Naked Juice Class Settlement

- NEW FILINGS

- Excerpt from Court Strikes Class Allegations Against Nestle as a Matter of Law:

The Court in Trazo v. Nestle USA, Inc., No. 12cv2272 (N.D. Cal.) granted a motion to strike class allegations, ruling that the plaintiffs’ complaint did not describe a certifiable class as a matter of law, because the class described necessarily to satisfy the typicality, ascertainability, or commonality requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The motion to strike was part of defendant’s motion to dismiss, which the court granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs sought to represent a national class of consumers who purchased any of a variety of Nestle products labeled or advertised as “No Sugar Added” but which contain concentrated fruit juice or other added sugars; listing “Evaporated Cane Juice” as an ingredient; or labeled or advertised as “All Natural” or “Natural,” but which contain artificial ingredients, flavoring, added coloring, and/or chemical preservatives, among other claims. The ruling on the motion to dismiss rejected all preemption arguments other than those directed to claims seeking to regulate labels claiming a product is a “source” of an antioxidant and USDA-approved labels of Hot Pockets and Lean Pockets. But the court found that the complaint failed to assert sufficient facts to state claims against some products, while leaving the core of the complaint undamaged.