October 5, 2022

A memorandum and order issued final week by Decide Naomi Reice Buchwald within the Southern District of New York ended a case alleging that KIND bars had been marketed in a misleading method, discovering that the plaintiffs had didn’t show a key assertion to their case.

The preliminary go well with was filed by plaintiff Robert O’Brien (each individually and on behalf of all others equally located) in 2015 in opposition to defendant Type, LLC, and alleged that the defendant’s merchandise had been labeled in a false and misleading method in violation of the New York Misleading Acts and Practices Regulation, the New York False Promoting Regulation, the Customers Authorized Treatments Act, and extra.

The plaintiffs on this go well with all bought the defendant’s merchandise that had been marketed with an “All Pure/Non GMO” label, which they assert within the grievance was each misleading and deceptive. The problems addressed in the latest order had been the defendant’s movement for abstract judgment, the defendant’s movement to decertify the courses, and Daubert motions from each events to disqualify the skilled witnesses within the case.

Decide Buchwald in the end granted Type’s movement for abstract judgment, their movement to decertify the category, and their motions to disqualify skilled witnesses. The plaintiff’s motions had been denied as moot.

Decide Buchwald sided with the defendants and concluded that the plaintiffs didn’t adequately exhibit that the defendant’s “All Pure” declare was misleading or deceptive. Describing this failure as “deadly” to the case, Decide Buchwald additional explains that the go well with’s claims had been all “equally premised on plaintiffs establishing a misleading and deceptive act and fail if plaintiffs can’t meet the statutory customary.”

See also  Org. Sues Shellfish Hatchery Over Pollution for the Second Time

The motions to decertify the category and disqualify the recognized skilled witnesses had been additionally granted. The decertification of the category was because of the plaintiff’s obvious demonstration that “they every maintain a special idea as to why they had been deceived,” that means that frequent questions of regulation or reality not predominate the case, and a category motion is not superior to different strategies.

Robert O’Brien was represented within the litigation by the Regulation Places of work of Paul C. Whalen and Zimmerman Regulation Places of work, whereas Type was represented by Mayer Brown.