§Why CasetextPricing

Evangeline Red et al v. Kraft Foods Inc. et al

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION IN SUPPORT OF re: MOTION to Certify Class 217

17 Cited authorities

  1. County of Los Angeles v. Davis

    440 U.S. 625 (1979)   Cited 1,774 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that voluntary cessation can render an issue moot if “there is no reasonable expectation ... that the alleged violation will recur”

  2. Caribbean Marine Services Co. v. Baldrige

    844 F.2d 668 (9th Cir. 1988)   Cited 1,156 times
    Holding that a "speculative" injury does not constitute irreparable harm

  3. Colgan v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc.

    135 Cal.App.4th 663 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 318 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that federal cases requiring “'extrinsic evidence,' such as expert testimony or consumer surveys...do not accurately reflect California law.”

  4. Hill v. Roll International Corp.

    195 Cal.App.4th 1295 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 158 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiff's EMCA claim must satisfy the reasonable consumer standard "as expressed in the FTC guides and as used in our state's consumer laws [UCL, FAL, CLRA]"

  5. Henderson v. Gruma Corporation

    Case No. CV 10-04173 AHM (AJWx) (C.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2011)   Cited 83 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding that plaintiffs satisfied the requirements for Article III standing by satisfying the requirements for standing under the FAL, UCL, and CLRA, even though they did not allege a threat of future injury

  6. Pom Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co.

    679 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2012)   Cited 67 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiff's claim based on the name and label of the product was barred because FDA regulations authorized the name that Coca-Cola had chosen, such that "Pom's challenge to the name 'Pomegranate Blueberry Flavored Blend of 5 Juices' would create a conflict with FDA regulations and would require us to undermine the FDA's apparent determination that so naming the product is not misleading."

  7. People v. Toomey

    157 Cal.App.3d 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 151 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a showing of threatened future harm or continuing violation is required" before a court can impose an injunction under California's Business and Professions Code

  8. Jones v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.

    No. C-08-03971-JW (DMR) (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2010)   Cited 35 times
    Striking paragraph that disclosed confidential settlement negotiations

  9. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. v. Alta-Dena Certified Dairy

    4 Cal.App.4th 963 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 34 times
    Upholding court order requiring defendant to place a warning on its product, which it continued to sell, to correct a misperception created by prior false advertising

  10. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Church

    411 F.2d 350 (9th Cir. 1969)   Cited 70 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the defendant could not use Volkswagen's trademark "in a manner which [was] likely to suggest to his prospective customers that he [was] part of Volkswagen's organization of franchised dealers and repairmen"

  11. Section 101.22 - Foods; labeling of spices, flavorings, colorings and chemical preservatives

    21 C.F.R. § 101.22   Cited 131 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Using vanilla as an example of a "characterizing flavor"