Plastic Waste and Microplastics
Plastics Litigation Tracker
WA
OR
CA
NV
AZ
UT
Nuisance Cases
Local Pollution Cases
Greenwashing Cases
AK
TX
FL
HI
NY
NM
MT
ID
SC
NC
PA
IL
IN
OH
MI
ME
LA
GA
AL
MS
NJ
OK
MN
WI
CO
WY
ND
SD
NE
KS
VA
IA
MO
AR
WV
VT
NH
MA
CT
MD
KY
TN
DE
This interactive feature is best experienced on desktop.
© 2024 King & Spalding LLP
kslaw.com
About King & Spalding
Contact Us
Disclaimer
Minnesota
9,999
9,999
9,999
active cases
metric
settled cases
WDC
Washington, D.C.
Ongoing
Minnesota v. Reynolds, June 2023, deceptive trade practices as to recyclability of LDPE recycling bags
New York
Texas
Settled
Formosa Plastics, October 2019, Formosa agreed to settle Clean Water Act lawsuit related to plastic pollution in Texas waterways for $50 million
South Carolina
Settled
Frontier Logistics, March 2021, Frontier Logistics agreed to settle Clean Water Act lawsuit related to plastic pollution in Charleston Harbor for $1 million.
Illinois
California
California
BY THE NUMBERS
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Ongoing
New York v. PepsiCo, November 2023, nuisance, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution.
Dorris v. Danone, January 2024, deceptive trade practices as to claims of carbon neutrality in relation to sale of plastic water bottles.
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Earth Island v. Crystal Geyser, February 2020, nuisance and unfair competition claim related to plastic pollution.
BNSF Railway, April 2024, San Diego Coastal
Environmental Rights Foundation sent BNSF notice of Clean Water Act violation and notice of intent to sue.
Dotson v. Danone, March 2024, deceptive trade practices as to microplastics in Evian drinking water. Ongoing.
Miller v. Philips North America and Cortez v. Handi-Crafi, exposure to microplastics from baby bottles and cups.
Bruno v. BlueTriton, February 2024, deceptive trade practices as to microplastics in Arrowhead drinking water.
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Swartz v. Coca-Cola, June 2021, deceptive trade practices as to recyclability of water bottles.
Weingartner v. Colgate-Palmolive, August 2023, deceptive trade practices as to “recyclable” Colgate toothpaste tubes.
Dotson v. CG Roxane, February 2024, deceptive trade practices as to microplastics in Crystal Geyser drinking water.
Patane v. Nestle, August 2017: deceptive trade practices as to representations regarding Poland Spring bottled water.
Cortez v. Handi-Craft Company, June 2024: exposure to microplastics from baby bottles and sippy cups.
Dismissed. Appeal pending.
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Earth Island v. Coca-Cola, June 2021, deceptive trade practices by marketing itself as sustainable and environmentally friendly company while contributing to plastic pollution.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Last Updated: July 18, 2024
Settled.
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Earth Island Inst. v. BlueTriton, August 2021: deceptive trade practices as to sustainability of plastic products and processes used in manufacturing those products.
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Daly v. Danone, February 2024, deceptive trade practices as to microplastics in Evian drinking water.
Slowinski v. BlueTriton, December 2023: deceptive trade practices as to microplastics in Ice Mountain drinking water.
Borovoy v. Procter & Gamble, May 2024: deceptive trade practices as to “pure cotton” Tampax products.
Dismissed in part
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Curtis v. 7-Eleven, October 2021: deceptive trade practices as to the recyclability of 7-Eleven’s “recyclable” foam cups and plates, party cups, and freezer bags.
Dismissed
Duchimaza v. Niagara Bottling, July 2021: deceptive trade practices as to the recyclability of Niagara Bottling, LLC’s plastic water bottles. Dismissed.
California
Ongoing
! Earth Island v. Crystal Geyser, February 2020, nuisance and unfair competition claim related to plastic pollution. Read more »
2BNSF Railway, April 2024, San Diego Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation sent BNSF notice of Clean Water Act violation and notice of intent to sue. EDotson v. Danone, March 2024, deceptive trade practices as to microplastics in Evian drinking water. Read more »EMiller v. Philips North America and Cortez v. Handi-Crafi, exposure to microplastics from baby bottles and cups. EBruno v. BlueTriton, February 2024, deceptive trade practices as to microplastics in Arrowhead drinking water. Read more »ESwartz v. Coca-Cola, June 2021, deceptive trade practices as to recyclability of water bottles. Read more »
EWeingartner v. Colgate-Palmolive, August 2023, deceptive trade practices as to “recyclable” Colgate toothpaste tubes. Read more » EDotson v. CG Roxane, February 2024, deceptive trade practices as to microplastics in Crystal Geyser drinking water. Read more » EPatane v. Nestle, August 2017: deceptive trade practices as to representations regarding Poland Spring bottled water. Read more »
ECortez v. Handi-Craft Company, June 2024: exposure to microplastics from baby bottles and sippy cups.
Settled
ESmith v. Keurig Green Mountain, September 2018: deceptive trade practices as to single-serve coffee pods. Read more »
ELast Beach Cleanup v. TerraCycle, November 2021: deceptive trade practices by marketing single-use plastics and difficult-to-recycle products as recyclable through TerraCycle programs despite strict participation limits. Read more »
Dismissed.
EGreenpeace v. Walmart, January 2021: deceptive trade practices as to Wal-Mart’s in-house recyclable plastic products. Read more »
EBargetto v. Walgreen, April 2022: deceptive trade practices as to sale and distribution of plastic grocery bags. Read more »
EPeterson v. Glad Products, February 2023: deceptive trade practices as to recyclability of plastic trash bags. Read more »
EBaker v. Nestle, April 2018: deceptive trade practices as to microplastics in Nestle drinking water. Read more »
Ongoing
! New York v. PepsiCo, November 2023, nuisance, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution.
EDorris v. Danone, January 2024, deceptive trade practices as to claims of carbon neutrality in relation to sale of plastic water bottles. Read more »
Dismissed
EDuchimaza v. Niagara Bottling, July 2021: deceptive trade practices as to the recyclability of Niagara Bottling, LLC’s plastic water bottles. Read more »
Washington, D.C.
Dismissed. Appeal Pending.
EEarth Island v. Coca-Cola, June 2021, deceptive trade practices by marketing itself as sustainable and environmentally friendly company while contributing to plastic pollution.
Settled.
EEarth Island Inst. v. BlueTriton, August 2021: deceptive trade practices as to sustainability of plastic products and processes used in manufacturing those products. Read more »
Maryland
Ongoing
! Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Minnesota
Ongoing
EMinnesota v. Reynolds, June 2023, deceptive trade practices as to recyclability of LDPE recycling bags. Read more »
Illinois
Ongoing
EDaly v. Danone, February 2024, deceptive trade practices as to microplastics in Evian drinking water. Read more »
ESlowinski v. BlueTriton, December 2023: deceptive trade practices as to microplastics in Ice Mountain drinking water. Read more »
EBorovoy v. Procter & Gamble, May 2024: deceptive trade practices as to “pure cotton” Tampax products.
EDaly v. The Wonderful Co. LLC, January 2024, deceptive trade practices as to microplastics in Fiji drinking water. Read more » Dismissed in part
ECurtis v. 7-Eleven, October 2021: deceptive trade practices as to the recyclability of 7-Eleven’s “recyclable” foam cups and plates, party cups, and freezer bags. Read more »
Texas
Settled
2Formosa Plastics, October 2019, Formosa agreed to settle Clean Water Act lawsuit related to plastic pollution in Texas waterways for $50 million.
South Carolina
Settled
2Frontier Logistics, March 2021, Frontier Logistics agreed to settle Clean Water Act lawsuit related to plastic pollution in Charleston Harbor for $1 million.
Latest Update: In August 2020, the Court denied Nestle’s motion for summary judgment with one exception as to the plaintiffs’ statutorily barred Rhode Island state law claim. In doing so, the Court largely rejected Nestle’s claims that: (1) no private right of action existed under the at-issue state laws; (2) the claims are preempted by the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act; (3) the lawsuit constituted an impermissible collateral attack on state agency actions; and (4) Nestle’s activities fell within various state statutes’ safe harbor exemptions from liability. In December 2023, Nestle filed another motion for summary judgment, on very similar grounds to its earlier motion, and because Nestle claims that the purported representations were not misleading. A hearing on Nestle’s motion was set for July 9.
Latest Update: In January 2019, the Court granted Nestle’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend, finding claims regarding the term “purified water” preempted given FDA’s approval of the labeling. On January 22, 2019, the plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint but for unknown reasons, voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice only two weeks later.
Latest update: In February 2022, the parties reached a settlement, pursuant to which, Keurig may not label, market, advertise, or otherwise represent the coffee pods as recyclable without a clear qualifying statement.
Latest update: In September 2021, the Court granted Walmart’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend, on the grounds that Greenpeace lacked standing to pursue its claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law. According to the Court, Greenpeace was never misled, as its lawsuit was “in response to its belief that the challenged statements were false.” Following two more unsuccessful attempts to allege Article III standing, Greenpeace dismissed the case without prejudice in June 2022.
Latest update: In November 2023, the parties reached a settlement. Pursuant to the settlement, TerraCycle agreed to track materials for recycling and develop standards for third-party recyclability certifications and substantiations. In addition, TerraCycle may only permit its name to be used for products that are part of a recycling program in which no budget restrictions prevent products to be accepted.
Latest update: In December 2022, the Court denied Walgreen’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint, finding that the plaintiff sufficiently pled that because the bags were not “recyclable” according to statutory and agency definitions of the term, the markings on Walgreen’s reusable bags indicating recyclability were misleading to a reasonable consumer. On June 14, the Court denied the plaintiff’s motion for certification—reasoning that common questions do not predominate over individual ones—and dismissed the action with prejudice for lack of standing.
Latest update: In July 2023, the Court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss—brought on standing grounds—reasoning that without the requested relief, consumers would not know whether the recyclability claims on the label remain false. In November 2023, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his claims with prejudice, and those of the putative class without prejudice, for unknown reasons.
Latest Update: In June 2022, the Court denied BlueTriton’s motion to dismiss, finding that: (1) Earth Island had standing, (2) the challenged representations constituted “trade practices” under D.C. law (despite that they were on websites and social media rather than marketing or sales materials); and (3) whether the representations were misleading to a reasonable consumer when viewed in context was a question for the jury. In February 2024, the parties reached a settlement on unknown terms and conditions.
Latest Update: On February 26, 2024, BlueTriton filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint on the grounds that the plaintiffs: (1) did not put forth sufficient evidence of a factual nexus with the products they purchased; (2) did not allege that BlueTriton made any representations regarding the water’s presence or absence of microplastics; (3) did not plausibly plead any diminished value or injury; and (4) lacked standing. The motion is still being briefed by the parties.
Latest Update: In September 2022, the Court granted 7-Eleven’s motion to dismiss as to the plaintiff’s claim that use of the term “recyclable” on 7-Eleven’s products was misleading because of the lack of available recycling facilities. In its ruling, the Court reasoned that no reasonable consumer would understand use of the term as a guarantee that the product would be recycled. The plaintiff’s claim regarding failure to include the proper identification code was sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. In January 2024, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification with respect to the remaining claims, which has not yet been ruled on by the Court.
Latest Update: In August 2022, the Court granted Niagara Bottling’s motion to dismiss with prejudice, holding that as a matter of law the representation “100% recyclable” was not plausibly pled to be false or misleading.
Latest Update: In April 2023, Danone filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that none of the statements regarding carbon neutrality were misleading. On January 10, 2024, the Court granted Danone’s motion only as to the breach of implied warranty claim, as the plaintiff did not allege that the product was unfit for its ordinary use. As to the remainder of the plaintiff’s claims, the Court could not determine as a matter of law that use of the term “carbon neutral” did not have the capacity to mislead. Danone filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s ruling on March 27, which is under submission by the Court.
Latest Update: In June 2022, the Court denied BlueTriton’s motion to dismiss, finding that: (1) Earth Island had standing, (2) the challenged representations constituted “trade practices” under D.C. law (despite that they were on websites and social media rather than marketing or sales materials); and (3) whether the representations were misleading to a reasonable consumer when viewed in context was a question for the jury. In February 2024, the parties reached a settlement on unknown terms and conditions.
Latest Update: On March 25, 2024, the case was removed to the Northern District of Illinois based on diversity jurisdiction. On June 28, 2024, Danone filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that: (1) the claims are preempted by the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act; (2) the plaintiffs failed to put forth evidence of microplastics in the product they purchased; (3) use of the term “natural spring water” was not deceptive; (4) the plaintiffs did not allege reasonable reliance or injury; and (5) the plaintiffs lacked standing. The motion is still being briefed.
Latest Update: In May 2023, the Court sustained the defendants’ demurrer with leave to amend, reasoning that Earth Island had not sufficiently pled (1) standing or facts to allege actual reliance on the defendants’ purported misrepresentations, and (2) that the defendants had promoted a product for hazardous use, as required to maintain a nuisance claim. Following this ruling, on October 2, 2023, Earth Island filed its First Amended Complaint, repurposing its dismissed Consumer Legal Remedies Act claim into a new claim for violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law. On November 16, 2023 the defendants demurred to Earth Island’s First Amended Complaint on the grounds that the Complaint: (1) did not cure the failure to allege actual reliance on any purported mispresentations, and (2) still did not sufficiently allege a hazardous use as required for nuisance claim. A hearing was held on April 22, and the demurrers were taken under submission by the Court.
Latest Update: On March 28, the case was removed to the Central District of California. On April 3, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice for unknown reasons.
Latest Update: In March 2024, BlueTriton moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint on the grounds that (1) the plaintiffs’ claims are preempted; (2) the plaintiffs failed to allege mispresentations, reliance or injury, and (2) the plaintiffs lack standing to seek injunctive relief. The Court granted BlueTriton’s motion on May 6, and the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on May 28. On June 18, BlueTriton moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint on the same grounds as its original motion. The motion is still being briefed.
Latest Update: The Court previously dismissed with leave to amend two versions of the plaintiffs’ complaint, concluding that the plaintiffs possessed standing to sue but the claims were not plausible under California law or the Federal Trade Commission’s Green Guides. According to the Court, the prior versions fell short because California law allows unqualified claims about recyclability if the entire product is recyclable through established programs available to a substantial majority of Californians, but the complaint focused only on minor components of the water bottles. On April 8, 2024, the Court rejected the defendants’ third attempt to dismiss the claims, reasoning that the Second Amended Complaint overcame this shortfall by framing the allegations around the recyclability of the entire water bottle, in a manner sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.
Latest Update: On February 6, 2024, the Court denied Colgate-Palmolive’s motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, distinguishing from cases which were dismissed because no reasonable consumer would interpret the term “100% recyclable” as a guarantee that the product would actually be recycled. According to the Court, the plaintiffs here instead asserted that no reasonable consumer would expect the product to not be accepted by any recycling program.
Latest Update: On April 1, the case was removed to the Central District of California. On April 25, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice for unknown reasons, noting in the dismissal that the defendant neither answered the complaint nor filed a motion for summary judgment.
Latest Update: On March 22, The Wonderful Company filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to adequately allege: (1) a material misrepresentation; (2) intent to deceive consumers; and (3) injury and damages. The Wonderful Company also argued that the plaintiff’s claims are preempted by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act which governs the requirements for artesian water. A hearing was held on May 20, and the motion was taken under submission by the Court.
Select a state or jurisdiction to view case information.