Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Garcia v. Kashi Co.

United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

September 5, 2014, Decided; September 5, 2014, Filed

CASE NO. 12-21678-CIV-LENARD/GOODMAN

Opinion

 [*1367]  OMNIBUS ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (D.E. [**2]  74); GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION REQUESTING JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS (D.E. 72); GRANTING AGREED MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL (D.E. 73); GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION TO REQUEST JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF THEIR RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (D.E. 81); AND GRANTING AGREED MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL (D.E. 88)

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendants Kashi Company and The Kellogg Company's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint ("Motion," D.E. 74), filed December 4, 2013. Plaintiffs Katrina Garcia, Laura Eggnatz and Julie Martin ("Plaintiffs") filed a Response on December 23, 2013 ("Response," D.E. 80), to which Defendants filed a Reply on January 9, 2014 ("Reply," D.E. 89).

Also before the Court is Defendants' Motion Requesting Judicial Notice in Support of their Motion to Dismiss (D.E. 72), filed December 2, 2013, Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to the Motion for Judicial Notice (D.E. 82), filed December 23, 2013, and Defendants' Reply thereto (D.E. 83), filed January 2, 2014.

Also before the Court are an Agreed Motion to File Documents Under Seal (D.E. 73), [**3]  filed December 4, 2013; Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Request Judicial Notice in Support of their Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (D.E. 81), filed December 23, 2013; and an Agreed Motion to File Documents Under Seal (D.E. 88), filed January 10, 2014.

The agreed and unopposed motions (D.E. 73, 81, and 88) are hereby GRANTED; the Court will address the contested motions separately. And, upon review of the Motions, Responses, Replies, and the record, the Court finds as follows.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

43 F. Supp. 3d 1359 *; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126904 **

KATRINA GARCIA, LAURA EGGNATZ, and JULIE MARTIN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. KASHI COMPANY, a California Corporation, and THE KELLOGG COMPANY, a Michigan Corporation, Defendants.

Subsequent History: Related proceeding at, Stay granted by, Motion denied by Hun v. Kashi Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115521 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 31, 2015)

CORE TERMS

products, food, labeling, FDA, ingredients, consumer, Defendants', Plaintiffs', alleges, Kashi, artificial, synthetic, judicial notice, regulations, misleading, preempted, privity, processing, motion to dismiss, deceptive, bioengineered, advertising, preemption, hexane-processed, USDA, subsidiary, express warranty, documents, Beverage, representations