On February 25, 2014, the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York certified a class of consumers alleging claims of fraud and misrepresentation of Capatriti brand “100% Pure Olive Oil.” In Ebin v. Kangadis Food (13 Civ. 2311), Judge Rakoff sided for Plaintiffs/Consumers.
The defendant in this class action lawsuit is Kangadis Food Inc. d/b/a The Gourmet Factory (“Defendant”). Defendant sells containers of Capatriti brand “100% Pure Olive Oil.” Plaintiffs allege that Defendant violated the fraud and misrepresentation statutes under New York and New Jersey law by labeling the olive oil as “100% Pure Olive Oil” when it actually contained “olive-pomace oil,” “olive-residue oil,” or “pomace.” Pomace oil is made from the residue materials left over after all of the olive oil has been extracted from the flesh of the olives. The leftover skins and olive pits are then superheated, bleached, deodorized, steamed and treated with chemical solvents to extract the oil. Plaintiffs allege that they relied on the label, “100% Pure Olive Oil,” when they made their purchase and even paid a higher premium (pomace oil sells for close to half the price of pure olive oil). Plaintiffs claim that if they knew the Capatriti olive oil contained pomace oil, they would have never followed through with the purchase.
On November 1, 2013, Plaintiffs moved to certify a class of defined as “all persons in the United States who purchased Capatriti 100% Pure Olive Oil packed before March 1, 2013.” They also created two subclasses, one for purchasers in New York and another for purchasers in New Jersey. Despite Defendant’s objections, the Court granted Plaintiffs motion for class certification. As a result, the case will proceed as a class and anyone who purchased Capatriti Brand “100% Olive Oil” could potentially recover monetary damages.
To qualify for class certification, Plaintiffs must demonstrate putative class meets four requirements: numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. Defendant argued that commonality was not possible because, among other reasons, it would require evaluating millions of individuals’ decisions for purchasing the olive oil to see if they relied on the labeling. The Court disagreed, stating that “[t]he commonality requirement may be met where the individual circumstances of class members differ but their injuries derive from a unity course of conduct by a single system.” (internal quotations and citations omitted). “Typicality is satisfied when each class member’s claim arises from the same course of events and each class member makes similar legal arguments to prove the defendant’s liability.” (internal quotations and citations omitted). Defendant argued that the typicality requirement could not be met because Plaintiffs cannot prove whether the olive oil they purchased actually contained pomace since they never tested it and do not currently possess the olive oil. The Court disagreed with this argument stating that “typicality refers to the nature of the claim of the class representatives and not to the specific facts from which the claims arose.” (internal quotations and citations omitted). The Court found that the numerosity and adequacy requirements were also satisfied. Furthermore, Defendant also argued that class certification should be denied because class members are not reasonably ascertainable. The Court once again disagreed. The class and the subclasses consist of persons in the United States who purchased Capatriti “100% Pure Olive Oil” packed before March 1, 2013. Three ways were proposed “to identify class members: (1) provide a claim form and receipt; (2) submit the unique ID stamped on each tin; and/or (3) provide a sworn affidavit identifying the particulars of the purchase.” The Court agreed with this proposal and stated that class actions were designed for “cases like this where a large number of consumers have been defrauded but no one consumer has suffered an injury sufficiently large as to justify brining an individual lawsuit.”
Finally, Defendant argued that class certification should not be granted because Plaintiffs cannot prove the elements of the claims under the various state laws on a class-wide basis because they would need to look to see if each individual customer was harmed by the mislabeling. The Court once again disagreed with Defendant. The Court stated that the mislabeling was enough to show harm. Also, that even if potential class members did not rely on the labeling, they were harmed because they overpaid for a lesser quality oil.
Anyone who has purchased a product claiming to be “100%” (i.e., organic, natural, juice, etc.) may have a claim if the product was mislabeled as such. Please contact the lawyers at Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP, (212) 300-0375, to schedule a free consultation to discuss your rights.