![]() In March and April 2021, Subway’s 4 counsel sent Amin’s counsel letters stating that any DNA testing of Subway’s tuna products, 5 including polymerase chain reaction (“PCR”) testing, was unreliable, citing two scientific journal 6 articles in support of that proposition. They alleged that Subway’s tuna products “do not contain tuna 3 nor have any ingredient that constitutes tuna.” Id. 1 United States District Court Northern District of California Case 4:21-cv-00498-JST Document 111 Filed 08/04/23 of 10 1 Plaintiffs Karen Dhanowa and Nilima Amin then filed the original complaint in this action 2 on January 21, 2021. 27 28 Dogra’s client at that time was Thomas Bull, who never acted as a plaintiff in the litigation. 102-2 at 25 8 (copyright symbol omitted), and that because the demand letter provided “no basis” for the 26 claims, Subway “ha no reason to believe that claims have any merit,” id. Subway sent a letter in response, stating that its “records indicate tuna menu items in 24 Subway restaurants are in fact tuna, and your client has no basis for his claims,” ECF No. ![]() Before Plaintiff filed the action, her counsel, Shalini 20 Dogra, sent demand letters to Subway on behalf of another Subway customer,1 stating that her 21 client intended to bring a class action against Subway for its “unlawful, misleading, and deceptive 22 advertising” in violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act. BACKGROUND Plaintiff in this putative class action contends that Subway misrepresents the content of its 18 19 tuna products. The Court 16 will grant Amin’s motion to dismiss and deny Subway’s motion for sanctions. 93, 102 12 Before the Court are Plaintiff Nilima Amin’s motion to dismiss her claims and Defendants 13 14 Subway Restaurants, Inc., Franchise World Headquarters LLC, and Subway Franchisee 15 Advertising Trust Fund LTD’s (“Subway”) motion for sanctions. 21-cv-00498-JST ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS Re: ECF Nos. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 9 SUBWAY RESTAURANTS, INC., et al., 10 Defendants. 111 Case 4:21-cv-00498-JST Document 111 Filed 08/04/23 of 10 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 NILIMA AMIN, 7 Plaintiffs, 8 v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |