Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 08-23-2024
Case Style:
Matthew Hawkins v. Walmart, Inc.
Case Number: 1:24-CV-374
Judge:
Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of California (Sacramento County)
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney: Heather F. Canner, Jacob Michael Harper
Description:
Sacramento, California consumer law class action lawyers represented the Plaintiffs.
Plaintiff Matthew Hawkins brought this putative class action against defendant Walmart, Inc., alleging false and deceptive advertising and labeling in connection with the sale of Walmart's Great Value Avocado Oil (“Avocado Oil”).
Hawkins alleged he purchased a bottle of Avocado Oil believing it was pure avocado oil as represented by Walmart. Hawkins alleged the Avocado Oil was adulterated with other oils and that he and the putative class members would not have purchased it, or would have paid less for it, if they had known that the product was not pure avocado oil.
On February 20, 2024, Hawkins filed this action in state court on behalf of himself, and others similarly situated, alleging violations of California's (1) Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et seq., (2) False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 et seq., and (3) Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.; and alleging claims for (4) breach of express warranty, Cal. Com. Code § 2313, (5) breach of implied warranty, Cal. Com. Code § 2314(2)(f), and (6) intentional misrepresentation. In his complaint, Hawkins alleges he and the putative class members “have suffered a financial injury in the form of paying a price premium that the Class Products command in the market as a result of Walmart's representations that they are pure avocado oil.” Id. at ¶ 23. Hawkins also alleges he and the putative class suffered damages “including but not limited to the amounts paid for the Class Products.”
Walmart removed this action from the Tuolumne County Superior Court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Walmart alleged in its Notice of Removal that that this action meets CAFA's removal requirements because there are more than 100 putative class members, minimal diversity between the parties exists, and the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs. Id. at 4-8. Hawkins moves to remand this action, arguing removal was improper because Walmart has not sufficiently established the amount in controversy. In the alternative, Hawkins requests narrowly tailored jurisdictional discovery. Walmart opposes the Motion and provides a declaration from its merchandising director, Tommy Reed. Hawkins timely filed his reply. Reply in support of Motion
Outcome: Motion to remand denied.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: