Reasonable restaurant consumers wouldn’t think “krab mix” had real crab in it

Kang v. P.F. Chang’s
China Bistro, Inc., No. CV 19-02252 PA (SPx), 2020 WL 2027596 (C.D. Cal. Jan.
9, 2020)
Kang alleged that
P.F. Chang’s “employed a classic bait and switch tactic whereby it falsely
labeled and advertised food products containing crab on their menu, when in
fact, no crab meat was present in the product” by selling “food items
containing ‘krab mix’ on their menu, including but not limited to [Defendant’s]
Kung Pao Dragon Roll, Shrimp Tempura Roll, and/or California Roll.” He brought
the usual California claims and a couple of others. The court dismissed all the
claims.
Without representative
plaintiffs from other states, Kang had no Article III standing to bring claims based on alleged
violations of consumer fraud and deceptive trade practices laws of states other
than California.
As for the
California claims, this one could be resolved on a motion to dismiss. Reasonable
consumers would not interpret “krab mix” to contain actual crab meat; it didn’t
need to be labeled “imitation crab” or otherwise explained. (Citing McKinnis v.
Kellog USA, 07-cv-02611, 2007 WL 4766060, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2007)
(granting motion to dismiss without leave to amend on plaintiff’s UCL, FAL, and
CLRA claims, finding no reasonable consumer would be misled by the word “Froot”
in “Froot Loops” into believing the product contained “Fruit”); Pelayo v.
Nestle USA, Inc., 989 F. Supp. 2d 973, 979 (C.D. Cal. 2013) (granting motion to
dismiss on plaintiffs’ CLRA and UCL claims finding no reasonable consumer would
be misled by the use of the words “All Natural” on a pasta product’s package
into believing the product contained only natural ingredients, where pasta
contained two artificial ingredients).) 
In addition, “a reasonable consumer understands that cheaper sushi
rolls, such as a California Roll, contain imitation as opposed to real crab.”  (Citing Werbel v. Pepsico, Inc., 2010 WL
2673860, at * (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2010) (holding, as a matter of law, that no
reasonable consumer would be led to believe that “Cap’n Crunch’s Crunch
Berries” cereal contained real fruit berries despite the use of the word
berries in the product).)
Additionally, other
dishes on P.F. Chang’s menu are labeled “crab,” where they contain actual crab.
A reasonable consumer would recognize the contrast.

from Blogger https://ift.tt/2W9LwAD

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s