fbpx

Quality Meats Miami Beach Chef Unpaid Overtime Class Action Lawsuit

This class action lawsuit has been brought by two former pastry chefs employed at Quality Meats Miami Beach who claim that they were systematically denied overtime payment at a rate of time and a half as required by law, despite working an average of 64 hours per week.

According to the complaint in this lawsuit, plaintiffs Victoria Bedard and Zakiya Lawrie Newton were both employed as pastry chefs by Meats on the Beach LLC, which owned and operates Quality Meats Miami Beach. Both worked for defendants during time periods spanning January 2015 and August 26, 2015. Plaintiff Bedard states that dating from April 7, 2015 through the end of her employment, she was paid an average hourly rate of $10.51, working 64 hours per week. Plaintiff Newton was paid an average hourly rate of $12.01, also working 64 hours weekly. Neither plaintiff was paid overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week as required by law, and they are both therefore claiming payment of $5.25 and $6.00, respectively, for hours clocked during the course of employment for past due overtime.

It is claimed in this class action lawsuit that the defedants willfully and intentionally refused to pay appropriate wages pursuant to the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act, despite being fully aware of them and/or failing to ensure that Company practices were in line with the law. Consequently, plaintiffs are now seeking the unpaid wages they claim are still owed, an equal amount in liquidated damages and reasonable attorney fees and court costs.

The purpose of the Fair Labor Standards Act, also commonly referred to as the Wages and Hours Bill, is to establish a minimum wage, rules for overtime pay and record keeping standards benefitting full-time and part-time workers in the private sector as well as those employed by federal, state and local government entities. The Act applies to employees who are "engaged in interstate commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, or who are employed by an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce." Typically speaking, an employer doing at least $500,000 of business or has $500,000 in gross sales annually will fall under the requirements of the FLSA, provided no other exception is applicable. Thus, such enterprises will have to follow minimum wage, overtime and all other regulations when it comes to their employees.

http://www.qualitymeatsmiami.com/about/

http://www.miami.com/ny-based-quality-meats-open-miami-beach-steakhouse-article

Tax USA Unpaid Overtime Class Action Lawsuit

In this employment class action lawsuit, a former non-exempt marketing employee of MTS Taxes & More, LLC, doing business in Florida as Tax USA is alleging that during the period of June 2011 thorugh 2012, he clocked roughly 48 hours per week without receiving any compensation whatsoever. He argues that defendants breached a verbal agreement to pay him between seven and nine percent of the company's revenue, ultimately paying him nothing.

According to the complaint, the defendants in this case operated as an organization selling or marketing its services to customers from throughout the United States, providing its services across state lines and generating in excess of $500,000 per annum, thereby meeting coverage requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act. As such, plaintiff Jean Murat was and is entitled to the wage and overtime protections of the Act, thereby forming the basis of his lawsuit.

The plaintiff alleges specifically that as a condition of his employment, he entered into a verbal agreement with the defendants under which he would receive compensation totaling seven to nine percent of the firm's revenue in exchange for services rendered. During the relevant period, the plaintiff worked an average of 48 hours a week, well in excess of the 40 hours required before overtime pay obligations are incurred by the employer. However, it is alleged, he actually received nothing whatsoever in the way of compensation.

It is argued that the owners and operators of MTS Taxes & More knew of their obligations under the FLSA and/or recklessly disregarded their duty to pay the plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals overtime wages due. Plaintiff Murat also alleges that defendants' failure to post required notices under the FLSA informing employees of their rights under the law precludes them from raising the statute of limitations as a defense in this action. 

Plaintiff Murat is seeking an award of actual damages in the amount shown due for unpaid wages and interest, an equal amount in liquidated damages, attorney fees and costs, all pursuant to relevant provisions of the FLSA as well as Florida's Minimum Wage Act. He also seeks damages under a theory of quantum meruit for the reasonable value of services he rendered to defendants as well as a theory of unjust enrichment conferred upon defendants by virtue of the work he performed.

The underlying purpose of the Fair Labor Standards Act, also commonly referred to as the Wages and Hours Bill, is to establish a minimum wage, rules for overtime pay and record keeping standards benefitting full-time and part-time workers in the private sector as well as those employed by federal, state and local government entities. The Act applies to employees who are "engaged in interstate commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, or who are employed by an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce." Typically speaking, an employer doing at least $500,000 of business or has $500,000 in gross sales annually will fall under the requirements of the FLSA, provided no other exception is applicable. Thus, such enterprises will be obliged to follow minimum wage, overtime and all other regulations when it comes to their employees.

Florida's Minimum Wage Act functions in a similar fashion to its federal counterpart, though Florida Law requires a recalculation of the state minimum wage each year, and employees who do not receive that amount may bring a civil acgtion against their emplolyer or any other person violating the law. The state attorney general may also bring an enforcement action in situations where the minimum wage law is not being followed.

 

Contact Lens Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit

This class action alleges that Cooper Vision, Alcon Laboratories, Bausch + Lomb, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, and ABB Optical Group violated federal and state antitrust laws through Unilateral Pricing Policies (UPPs) for disposable contact lenses.

The nationwide class for this lawsuit includes all persons in the US who purchased disposable contact lenses manufactured by Alcon Laboratories, Bausch + Lomb, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, and Cooper Vision, where the prices for the contacts were set via  Unilateral Pricing Policy. There are also Maryland and California subclasses. The class period is from June 1, 2013 to the present.

Evidence given at a Senate Hearing shows that nearly 39 million Americans wear contact lenses, spending approximately $4.2 billion dollars per year on these products. Approximately 90% of these contact lenses are the disposable type which are replaced on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis. 

According to testimony given at the Senate Hearing, four of the defendants in this case—Cooper Vision, Alcon Laboratories, Bausch + Lomb, and Johnson & Johnson—together control 97% of the US contact lens market. The fifth, the ABB Optical Group, is the largest distributor of contact lenses in the US; more than two-thirds of eye care professionals (ECPs) buy lenses from ABB.

The FDA considers disposable contact lenses to be Class II or Class III devices, which may be purchased only with a prescription from an ECP. Prescriptions include not only the type and power of the lenses, but also the particular brand of contact required.

The complaint says that ECPs thus may prescribe whichever lenses provide them with the largest profit margins and may refuse to prescribe a manufacturer’s lenses if their profit margins are undercut by more efficient retailers. Thus the manufacturers have an interest in seeing that ECP prices for their lenses are not undercut.

The complaint alleges that ECPs and contact manufacturers have tried to limit price competition from mass merchandisers (like “big box” stores) and Internet retailers. It claims and that all four manufacturers conspired with each other as well as with wholesaler ABB to impose minimum retail prices on certain contact lens lines and to forbid selling these products at a discount.

Over fifteen months, beginning in June 2013, the complaint alleges, the four manufacturers set in place a UPP consisting of minimum resale price maintenance requirements. It claims that these were not “unilateral” pricing policies but the result of an agreement to limit price competition reached only after extensive consultation with independent ECPs and the ABB. The complaint also cites a 1996 lawsuit (eventually settled) that claimed that manufacturers had conspired with ECPs to restrict the supply of contact lenses to alternative sources of distribution such as mail-order houses.

The class action thus alleges that the manufacturers and distributor have violated the Sherman Act as well as state antitrust and unfair competition laws.

 

Pulse Restaurant Unpaid Overtime Class Action Lawsuit

In this lawsuit a former banquet server for private events at Pulse Restaurant in New York City is alleging that during her time as an employee she was routinely underpaid for total hours worked, denied gratuity amounts to which she was entitled and was not provided with accurate wage statements as required by law.

Defendant 1285 Bakery, Inc. is a New York Corporation that owns and operates a private event business at Pulse Restaurant in New York City. The defendant company has an annual gross volume in excess of $500,000, and is owned by Nicholas Castigliano, who also has authority to hire and fire employees at the facility. Castigliano also has authority over matters of employee scheduling, discipline, payroll issues and record-keeping at the restaurant.

According to the complaint, plaintiff Ginger Masoud was employed sporadically as a banquet server by Pulse Restaurant at Rockefeller Center from mid-2013 to early 2015. The plaintiff alleges that over the course of her employment by 1285 Bakery, Inc., d/b/a/ Pulse Restaurant, she was often not paid for her true hours worked, was never informed exactlay how she would be compensated for work performed, did not receive accurate accountings of wages and hours worked and did not receive the overtime premium for working more than 40 hours in a week or New York's "spread of hours" premium for working days longer than 10 hours. Gratuities routinely went unpaid despite the fact that the defendant charged 20% service charges to private event customers.

As a result of her experience as an employee working at Pulse Restaurant, the plaintiff is alleging overtime violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, violation of the New York Minimum Wage Act, illegal deductions of gratuities under the New York Labor Law, violations of the New York Labor Law's Spread of Hours Provisions and violations of the New York notice requirements under its Labor Law.

Plaintiff seeks to have this lawsuit designated as a collective action and federal class action and to be appointed representative of the class of similarly situated individuals. She is also pursuing damages, including liquidated damages, penalties provided by law, attorney fees and interest.

http://pulse-restaurant.com/learn/rockefeller-plaza.php

http://www.rockefellercenter.com/food-and-drink/pulse-restaurant-bar/

Pulse Restaurant Unpaid Overtime Class Action Lawsuit

In this lawsuit a former banquet server for private events at Pulse Restaurant in New York City is alleging that during her time as an employee she was routinely underpaid for total hours worked, denied gratuity amounts to which she was entitled and was not provided with accurate wage statements as required by law.

Defendant 1285 Bakery, Inc. is a New York Corporation that owns and operates a private event business at Pulse Restaurant in New York City. The defendant company has an annual gross volume in excess of $500,000, and is owned by Nicholas Castigliano, who also has authority to hire and fire employees at the facility. Castigliano also has authority over matters of employee scheduling, discipline, payroll issues and record-keeping at the restaurant.

According to the complaint, plaintiff Ginger Masoud was employed sporadically as a banquet server by Pulse Restaurant at Rockefeller Center from mid-2013 to early 2015. The plaintiff alleges that over the course of her employment by 1285 Bakery, Inc., d/b/a/ Pulse Restaurant, she was often not paid for her true hours worked, was never informed exactlay how she would be compensated for work performed, did not receive accurate accountings of wages and hours worked and did not receive the overtime premium for working more than 40 hours in a week or New York's "spread of hours" premium for working days longer than 10 hours. Gratuities routinely went unpaid despite the fact that the defendant charged 20% service charges to private event customers.

As a result of her experience as an employee working at Pulse Restaurant, the plaintiff is alleging overtime violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, violation of the New York Minimum Wage Act, illegal deductions of gratuities under the New York Labor Law, violations of the New York Labor Law's Spread of Hours Provisions and violations of the New York notice requirements under its Labor Law.

Plaintiff seeks to have this lawsuit designated as a collective action and federal class action and to be appointed representative of the class of similarly situated individuals. She is also pursuing damages, including liquidated damages, penalties provided by law, attorney fees and interest.

http://pulse-restaurant.com/learn/rockefeller-plaza.php

http://www.rockefellercenter.com/food-and-drink/pulse-restaurant-bar/

QLogic (QLGC) Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit

     This complaint is regarding a securities fraud class action against QLogic Corporation, a leading supplier of high performance network infrastructure solutions, for allegations of materially misleading the investing public by inflating the price of QLogic’s common stock and publicly issuing false and misleading statements, which failed to disclose material adverse information and misrepresented the truth about QLogic’s business, operations, and prospects.

Who Is Affected?

     This federal securities fraud class action is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all purchasers of QLogic’s securities between April 30, 2015 and July 30, 2015, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Exchange Act of 1934.  QLogic designs and supplies server and storage networking infrastructure products that provide, enhance, and manage computer data communication facilitating transfer of data and enable resource sharing between servers, networks, and storage.  QLogic is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business located in Aliso Viejo, California.  Its shares trade on NASDAQ under the ticker symbol “QLGC.”

Procedural History

     This class action lawsuit was filed on September 28, 2015 and is captioned Phyllis Hull et al. v. QLogic Corporation, et al.  It was filed in the California Central District Court and the civil docket number is 2:15-cv-07617.  The class period runs from April 30, 2015 through July 30, 2015, inclusive.

     On July 9, 2015, QLogic issued a press release reporting a preliminary net revenue of approximately $113 million for the first quarter of 2016, which is roughly $20 million below the forcasted range of $124 to $132 million.  QLogic revealed that its financial results have been negatively impacted by lower than expected demand due to general weakness in its traditional enterprise server and storage markets, and a build-up of inventory at a major original equipment manufacturer customer due to a slower next-generation server transition in enterprise environments.”  Following this announcement, QLogic’s stock price fell over 21% the very same day.

     On July 30, 2015, QLogic announced its actual net revenue for first fiscal quarter of 2016 confirming it at $113.4 million.  Following the announcement, QLogic’s stock fell another 22% the following day.  The forecasted revenue of $133 million is drawn from QLogic’s Fourth Quarter and Fiscal Year 2015 Results press release published on April 30, 2015.  Therein, QLogic’s CEO, Prasad Rampalli, praised its company’s expansion of market share position and product development success, both of which dictated the 13% increase of revenue during fiscal year 2015. 

     Following the July 30, 2015 fiscal quarter report, it became clear that Rampalli’s statements were false or, at least, unrealistic given the information known to him at that time.  The complaint alleges that Rampalli and his fellow executives were aware the build-up in inventory would stagnate sales and artificially shrink QLogic’s product demand.  In addition, a slower-than-predicted transition to a next-generation server had further impacted QLogic’s market share. 

Sientra (SIEN) Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit

     A class action complaint is brought against Sientra, Inc., a medical aesthetics company, which develops and sells medical aesthetics products to plastic surgeons.  Sientra offers silicone gel breast implants for use in breast augmentation and breast reconstruction procedures, as well as breast tissue expanders.  Sientra also provides body contouring and other implants, including gluteal, pectoral, calf, facial, and nasal implants. 

Who Is Affected?

     This is a federal securities class action is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities which purchased the securities of Sientra from March 18, 2015 through September 24, 2015, inclusive, and are now seeking to pursue remedies against Sientra and its officers and directors under the Exchange Act of 1934.  Sientra is a medical aesthetics company which develops and sells medical aesthetics products to plastic surgeons.  Sientra was founded in 2003 and was formerly known as Juliet Medical, Inc.  Sientra is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in Santa Barbara, California.  Its shares trade on NASDAQ under the ticker symbol “SIEN.”

Procedural History

     This class action lawsuit was filed on September 25, 2015 and is captioned John M. Flynn et al. v. Sientra, Inc. et al.  It was filed in the California Central District Court and the civil docket number is 2:15-cv-07548.  The class period runs from March 18, 2015 through September 24, 2015, inclusive.

     The exclusive manufacturer of Sientra’s products is Silimed, which is headquartered in Brazil and is the largest manufacturer of silicone implants in South America with over 34 years of experience manufacturing silicone-based implants.  While Sientra does not manufacture the implants itself, Sientra’s products are listed under FDA Medical Device Establishment Registration as being the specification developer of its products and owner of all FDA approvals and clearances.  Sientra’s March 18, 2015 annual report for year ending December 31, 2014 states Sientra is primarily responsible for the manufacturing and quality assurance of its products.  “When we receive products from Silimed, we inspect the products prior to shipping them to our customers.”

     On September 24, 2015, the United Kingdom’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) had suspended sales of Silimed products after an audit of Silimed’s manufacturing processes revealed a contamination in Silimed’s Rio de Janeiro manufacturing plant.  Sientra’s stock plummeted a whopping 53% the very same day as a result of MHRA’s suspension.

Snyder’s Pretzels All Natural Class Action Lawsuit

This class action alleges that Snyder’s of Hanover uses genetically-modified (GMO), artificial, and synthetic ingredients in many of its chips, snacks, and similar food products, even though it advertises and labels those food products as “natural”. The complaint alleges that Snyder’s has therefore violated consumer protection and business laws.

The nationwide class for this action includes all persons in the US and its territories who purchased one or more of the products listed below during the class period. There is also a multi-state class for persons in Florida, California, and New York who purchased the products The class period runs from November 13, 2009 to the present.

The complaint alleges that all of the products listed below contain GMO ingredients and many contain artificial, synthetic, or highly-processed ingredients.

For example, the complaint claims, all of the products listed under Snyder’s Snacks contain genetically modified canola oil or genetically-modified corn. In addition, some of them contain the following:

  • corn enriched with thiamine, riboflavin, niacin (synthetic), iron, and folic acid (synthetic)
  • enriched flour, consisting of wheat flour niacin (synthetic), reduced iron, thiamine mononitrate (synthetic), riboflavin, and folic acid (synthetic)
  • dextrose, which is synthetically produced using genetically-modified corn
  • maltodextrin (synthetic)
  • corn starch, which contains or is made from genetically-modified wheat

The products at issue in this complaint include the following:

Snyder’s Snacks:

  • Snyder’s of Hanover The Pounder Old Tyme Pretzels
  • Snyder’s of Hanover The Pounder Mini Pretzels
  • Snyder’s of Hanover The Pounder Snaps Pretzels
  • Snyder’s of Hanover The Pounder Thins Pretzels
  • Snyder’s of Hanover The Pounder Pretzels
  • Snyder’s of Hanover The Pounder Sourdough Specials
  • Snyder’s of Hanover The Pounder Sourdough Dark Specials
  • Snyder’s of Hanover Reduced Fat The Pounder Yellow Corn Tortilla Chips
  • Snyder’s of Hanover Reduced Fat The Pounder White Corn Tortilla Chips
  • Snyder’s of Hanover Reduced Fat The Pounder Restaurant Style Tortilla Chips
  • Snyder’s of Hanover Reduced Fat The Pounder Whole Grain Tortilla Chips
  • Snyder’s of Hanover Reduced Fat The Pounder Dippin’ Strips Tortilla Chips
  • Snyder’s of Hanover Reduced Fat Twist of Lime Tortilla Chips

Cape Cod Chips:

  • Cape Cod Kettle Cooked Potato Chips Original
  • Cape Cod Kettle Cooked Potato Chips Sea Salt & Vinegar
  • Cape Cod Kettle Cooked Potato Chips Sea Salt & Cracked Pepper
  • Cape Cod Kettle Cooked Potato Chips Sweet & Spicy Jalapeño
  • Cape Cod Kettle Cooked Potato Chips Sweet Mesquite Barbecue
  • Cape Cod Kettle Cooked Potato Chips Sour Cream & Green Onion
  • Cape Cod Kettle Cooked Potato Chips 40% Reduced Fat Original
  • Cape Cod Kettle Cooked Potato Chips 40% Less Fat Sea Salt & Vinegar
  • Cape Cod Kettle Cooked Potato Chips 40% Less Fat Sweet Mesquite Barbecue
  • Cape Cod Kettle Cooked Potato Chips 40% Less Fat Aged Cheddar & Sour Cream
  • Cape Cod Kettle Cooked Potato Chips 40% Less Fat Sea Salt & Cracked Pepper
  • Cape Cod Kettle Cooked Waffle Cut Potato Chips Sea Salt
  • Cape Cod Kettle Cooked Waffle Cut Potato Chips Farm Stand Ranch
  • Cape Cod Kettle Cooked Waffle Cut Potato Chips Seasoned Pepper
  • Cape Cod Kettle Cooked Potato Chips Chef’s Recipe Feta & Rosemary
  • Cape Cod Kettle Cooked Potato Chips Chef’s Recipe Roasted Garlic & Red Pepper

EatSmart Snacks:

  • EatSmart Naturals Whole Grain Tortilla Chips Sea Salt
  • EatSmart Naturals Whole Grain Cheese Curls White Cheddar Cheese
  • EatSmart Naturals Corn & Rice Puffs White Cheddar Cheese
  • EatSmart Potato Crisps All Natural Popped Snacks Sea Salt & Vinegar

Padrinos Chips:

  • Padrinos Tortilla Chips Restaurant Style
  • Padrinos Tortilla Chips No Salt
  • Padrinos Tortilla Chips Reduced Fat

 

LSB Industries (LXU) Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit

     This class action complaint is brought against LSB Industries, Inc., a manufacturing and marketing company, for making false public statements about the estimated costs of expanding its El Dorado Facility and, thereby, artificially inflating its net revenues.

Who Is Affected?

     This is a class action on behalf of purchasers of LSB common stock between May 8, 2015 and August 7, 2015, inclusive, pursuing remedies under the Exchange Act of 1934.  LSB manufactures and sells chemical products for the agricultural, mining and industrial markets as well as commercial and residential climate control products, such as water source and geothermal heat pumps, hydronic fan coils, modular geothermal and other chillers and large custom air handlers.  LSB is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.  Its shares trade on NYSE under the ticker symbol “LXU.”

Procedural History

     This class action lawsuit was filed on September 25, 2015 and is captioned Dennis Wilson et al. v. LSB Industries, Inc. et al.  It was filed in the New York Southern District Court and the civil docket number is 1:15-cv-07614.  The class period runs from May 8, 2015 through August 7, 2015, inclusive.

     On May 8, 2015, at the beginning of the class period, LSB released its 2015 First Quarter report, wherein it stated that the El Dorado facility expansion project remained “on time and on budget.”

     On July 14, 2015, LSB issued a press release entitled “LSB Industries, Inc. Updates Status of El Dorado Facility Expansion,” wherein it disclosed that LSB’s El Dorado factory expansion project would run over budget, increasing from $495 million to $575 million.  LSB’s CEO, Barry Golsen, stated that the factors contributing to the increase in cost were productivity and quality issues with a subcontractor responsible for the installation of piping in the plant and that the original project estimates were based upon specific quantities of construction materials and labor-hours provided by the construction contractor.  The news caused LSB’s stock to fall 4% the following day. 

     On August 7, 2015, LSB announced that the expansion budget has gone up again to $680 million, which was significantly higher than the original $495 estimate.  The total cost of the project exceeded the previously projected, due to work performed by a previous subcontractor.  The announcement caused LSB stock to drop again over 34% the very same day.

     On September 3, 2015, LSB issued a press release announcing LSB’s leadership transition and that Barry Golsen will be stepping down as CEO, effective immediately.  While the report does not tie Golsen’s termination to the inadequate management and supervision of the El Dorado expansion project, it would seem the former was causally related to the expansion estimates mistakes. 

Axe and Degree Deodorant Slack Fill Class Action Lawsuit

This class action suit alleges Unilever engaged in deceptive business practices in the packaging of several personal care deodorant products in violation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and state consumer laws.  

Unilever United States, Inc.  markets, sells and distributes  various personal products,  including “Degree Dry Protection” (Degree) and “Axe Gold Temptation” (Axe) anti-perspirants and deodorants (“Products”).  Degree is available in Clean, Cool Comfort, Extreme Blast, Power and Sport scents.  Axe is a line of anti-perspirants and deodorants available as deodorant and anti-perspirant and deodorant sticks.  Unilever sells the Products at supermarket chains, convenience stores and major retail outlets nationwide, including CVS, Costco, Target, Wal-Mart, Walgreens and Rite Aid.

The complaint alleges that the actual 2.7 ounce deodorant sticks, which are approximately  2 1/2” wide and 3” long, are sold in a container that is approximately 5 ¾“ high and 2 ¾” wide.  The size of the container is alleged to have almost 3” of non-functional slack fill, or 48% of slack-fill, designed to give the false impression that there is more Product than is actually in the container, in violation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and the New York General Business Code.   Federal regulations describe a product to be “misbranded” if  “a container is so made, formed or filled as to be misleading.”  “Non-functional slack-fill” is defined as the empty space in a package that is filled to less than capacity for reasons other than authorized by  FDCA regulations. The complaint alleges that the packaging of the Unilever Products are intended to make it appear to the reasonable consumer that the consumer is buying more that what is actually being sold.

New York resident Timba Bimont purchased numerous Axe and Degree Products. Bimont filed suit against Unilever in United States District Court Southern District of New York on September 24, 2014, on behalf of himself and others, alleging Unilever engaged in deceptive and otherwise improper business practices in the packaging of the Products.  Unilever is claimed to have routinely employed slack-filled packaging containing non-functional slack-fill to mislead customers into believing they were receiving more than was actually included in the package. The complaint alleges purchasers viewed the misleading Product packaging, reasonably relied on the representations by Unilever, and were deceived into purchasing the Products for a premium price.

The complaint references the deceptive and unfair practices and/or consumer protection laws in New York and all other states that provide the same protections as the FDCA and alleges Unilever was unjustly enriched by the deceptive sales of its Products nationwide.  The suit seeks class action certification, damages, attorney fees  and an injunction requiring repackaging of the Products.