Donna De Rosa v. Tri-Union Seafoods, LLC et al

Filing 11

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Cormac J. Carney. Plaintiff Donna De Rosa brings this action against Defendants Tri-Union Seafoods, LLC, Tri-Union Frozen Products, Inc., and Thai Union Group, PCL, for violations of the California U nfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq., the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et seq., and the California False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, et seq. On Dec ember 9, 2015, the Court dismissed the complaint in a related case, Barber v. Nestle USA Inc., based on the safe harbor doctrine. See Case No. 15-cv-01364-CJC-AGR (Dkt. 39 Dec. 9, 2015). The Court notes that Plaintiff's claims in this actio n are very similar to the claims at issue in Barber and suspects that the safe harbor doctrine may also require dismissal of these claims. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this action should not be dismissed for the reasons stated in the order dismissing the complaint in Barber. A response is due on January 7, 2016. (dro)

15UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. CV 15-07540-CJC(AGRx)

Date: December 17, 2015

Title: DE ROSA V. TRI-UNION SEAFOODS, LLC ET AL.

PRESENT:
HONORABLE CORMAC J. CARNEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Melissa Kunig
Deputy Clerk
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF:

None Present

N/A
Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:

None Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Plaintiff Donna De Rosa brings this action against Defendants Tri-Union
Seafoods, LLC, Tri-Union Frozen Products, Inc., and Thai Union Group, PCL, for
violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et
seq., the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et seq., and
the California False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, et seq. On
December 9, 2015, the Court dismissed the complaint in a related case, Barber v. Nestle
USA Inc., based on the safe harbor doctrine. See Case No. 15-cv-01364-CJC-AGR (Dkt.
39 Dec. 9, 2015). The Court notes that Plaintiff’s claims in this action are very similar to
the claims at issue in Barber and suspects that the safe harbor doctrine may also require
dismissal of these claims. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE
why this action should not be dismissed for the reasons stated in the order dismissing the
complaint in Barber. A response is due on January 7, 2016.

sr
MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL-GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk MKU