A Class Action lawsuit was recently filed against StarKist, Inc. in U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, on behalf of individual plaintiffs Kurtz Andretti, who are former consumers of defendant StarKist tuna. According to the complaint, the defendant systematically increases the price of the tuna at which it can be sold to increase its profits. This price increase is allegedly motivated by the desire to achieve a higher market share for the defendant tuna in what is one of the largest tuna industries in the world. The complaint further claims that the defendants made these alleged price adjustments in violation of the federal Hazzan Act, which prohibits such price adjustments.

The Class Action Lawsuit Against Stare At The Throat Of A Class Action Lawsuit

The plaintiff’s attorney’s main contention, in this case, is that the defendants, through their agent’s efforts, did not take reasonable steps necessary to protect consumers from the apparent dangers inherent in the defendant’s actions. Mr. Klein said, “Plaintiffs have alleged, about the first cause of action, that defendants did not take reasonable and practical measures necessary to ensure that [plaintiffs’ ketch up] were protected from apparent and obvious dangers, such as the rising incidence of overfishing.” He went on to say that such actions were indicative of “a lack of business sense.” Further, Mr. Klein said that such actions demonstrated a disregard for the welfare of the consumers.

See also  5 Things You Should Know About No Win No Fee Arrangements

Plaintiffs argue that the defendant failed to provide a safe harbor to its consumers because of the “unexplained and unjustified” increase in the prices and that such action deprived them of economic benefits.

They further contend that defendants did not act reasonably when they increased the prices of tuna in light of increasing competition from other food preparers in the market. In light of this conduct, the complaint states that this action deprived class members of an adequate amount of protection against the elements that are known to deface fish and also encourage and promote the growth of sharks. Class members are further concerned that such predatory attacks on tuna could lead to the death of large populations of these animals. The complaint further contends that the defendants failed to take reasonable steps to assure the safety of its customers, which resulted in the alleged violations of the terms of the agreement with the class. Finally, the complaint contends that the defendants failed to provide any evidence to support the conclusion that their actions will benefit or protect the interests of any class members.

A settlement was originally sought in this case because it is believed that the original pricing structure outlined in the marketing plan was defective.

Plaintiffs argue that they were subject to disparate treatment about the quantity and quality of canned light tuna that they purchased from defendant stores. This led to a series of conversations between attorneys who reviewed the marketing plan and proposed changes to meet the plaintiffs’ concerns. Attorneys also assert that they provided this same proof to the six class members that they met. These communications resulted in the issuance of revised marketing plans.

See also  The Ultimate Guide to Debt Collection Law Firms in the Netherlands

Plaintiffs now seek a class-action lawsuit against defendant Global Tuna. Global Tuna responded to the complaint by filing its complaint in a federal court in New York. The complaint names defendant individually and seeks a declaration that the Pricing Practices Clause contained in the agreement is unenforceable under federal law.

Plaintiffs additionally claim that defendant did not have the duty to warn them of the dangers of consuming mercury and demanded that they become personally liable for damages that they suffered as a result of the defendant’s fishing practices. A class-action lawsuit against Global Tuna further claims that the defendants violated the fiduciary duty owed to prospective customers, and failed to properly develop a scientific basis for its statements regarding the safety of tuna. The dismissal motion was originally filed in California but was later filed in New York. The case was initially resolved in favor of Global Tuna, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an order to the trial court holding that plaintiffs’ complaint was proper and that they could move forward with their case.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *