Trader Joe’s Tuna
July 2019: Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement agreement after a June 2019 decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a related case, In Re Hyundai and Kia Fuel Economy Litigation, concluded that the choice of law analysis is not required when the laws of one state are being applied nationwide for settlement purposes.
April 2019: A federal judge denied preliminary approval of the proposed settlement agreement finding that the predominance requirement for class certification was not met and the plaintiffs did not conduct a required choice of law analysis.
October 2017: A federal judge dismissed the New York claims but allowed the California claims to move forward. To read the full decision and learn more about all of the dismissed and continuing claims, click here.
June 2017: A federal judge granted Trader Joe’s Motion to Dismiss because the plaintiffs’ state law claims were based on FDA regulations and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act prohibits plaintiffs from bringing such claims. The judge gave plaintiffs 30 days to amend the complaint.
Later in June, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint making similar allegations.
November 2016: These two lawsuits along with two others against Trader Joe’s were consolidated to be heard together. (In Re Trader Joe’s Tuna Litigation, Case No. 16-cv-1371, C. D. Cal.)
January – February 2016: Two class-action lawsuits were filed against Trader Joe’s for allegedly underfilling five-ounce cans of tuna, in violation of federal standards. (The complaints allege that the average weight of the tuna is less than 3 ounces.) To read the complaints, click on the case information below.
- Aliano et al v. Trader Joe’s Company, Case No. 16-cv-2623, N. D. Ill.
- Magier et al v. Trader Joe’s Company and Trader Joe’s East Inc., Case No. 16-cv-43, S. D. NY.
For more information about the marketing of tuna and TINA.org’s coverage of the products, click here.