Strumlauf et al v. Starbucks Corporation
Filing
1
COMPLAINT against Starbucks Corporation ( Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0971-10295678.). Filed bySiera Strumlauf, Benjamin Robles. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Fisher, Lawrence) (Filed on 3/16/2016)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
L. Timothy Fisher (State Bar No. 191626)
Julia A. Luster (State Bar No. 295031)
1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
jluster@bursor.com
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
Scott A. Bursor (State Bar No. 276006)
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 989-9113
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-Mail: scott@bursor.com
MILITARY JUSTICE ATTORNEYS, PLLC
Gerald Healy (pro hac vice motion forthcoming)
219 Scott Street, PMB 315
Beaufort, SC 29902
Telephone: (844) 334-5459
Facsimile: (843) 645-6530
E-Mail: gerry@militaryjusticeattorneys.com
17
MILITARY JUSTICE ATTORNEYS, PLLC
John Hafemann (State Bar No. 238758)
21 W. Park Avenue
Savannah, GA 31401
Telephone: (844) 334-5459
Facsimile: (843) 645-6530
E-Mail: john@militaryjusticeattorneys.com
18
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
15
16
19
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
20
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
21
22
23
SIERA STRUMLAUF and BENJAMIN
ROBLES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated,
24
25
26
Plaintiffs,
v.
STARBUCKS CORPORATION,
27
Defendant.
28
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case No. _______________
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Plaintiffs Siera Strumlauf and Benjamin Robles (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) bring this action
1
2
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated against Defendant Starbucks Corporation
3
(“Starbucks” or “Defendant”). Plaintiffs make the following allegations pursuant to the
4
investigation of their counsel and based upon information and belief, except as to the allegations
5
specifically pertaining to themselves, which are based on personal knowledge.
6
NATURE OF ACTION
7
1.
This is a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Starbucks Caffè Lattes,
8
Flavored Lattes, Pumpkin Spice Lattes, Egg Nog Lattes, Skinny Lattes, Skinny Flavored Lattes,
9
Vanilla Lattes, and Skinny Vanilla Lattes (collectively, “Lattes”). At its retail locations, Starbucks
10
represents on its menu that its Lattes contain “12 fl. oz.” for a Tall, “16 fl. oz.” for a Grande, and
11
“20 fl. oz.” for a Venti:1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Technically, the menu represents that Venti beverages are “20/24 fl. oz.” This means that hot
beverages (like Starbucks Lattes) are purportedly “20 fl. oz.,” while cold beverages are purportedly
“24 fl. oz.” For ease of reference, this complaint will only refer to the relevant representation as
being “20 fl. oz.” in the context of Lattes.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
1
However, Starbucks Lattes are uniformly underfilled pursuant to a standardized recipe. Tall Lattes
2
are not 12 fluid ounces, Grande Lattes are not 16 fluid ounces, and Venti Lattes are not 20 fluid
3
ounces. Starbucks cheats purchasers by providing less fluid ounces in their Lattes than
4
represented. In fact, Starbucks Lattes are approximately 25% underfilled.
5
2.
Starbucks Lattes are made from a standardized recipe, which Starbucks instituted in
6
2009 to save on the cost of milk – one of its most expensive ingredients. To create a Latte, the
7
standardized recipe requires Starbucks baristas to fill a pitcher with steamed milk up to an etched
8
“fill to” line that corresponds to the size of the customer’s order, pour shots of espresso into a
9
separate serving cup, pour the steamed milk from the pitcher into the serving cup, and top with ¼”
10
of milk foam, leaving ¼” of free space in the cup. However, Starbucks’ standardized recipes for
11
Lattes result in beverages that are plainly underfilled. Stated otherwise, the etched “fill to” lines in
12
the pitchers are too low, by several ounces.
13
3.
Moreover, the serving cups used by Starbucks for its Lattes are simply too small to
14
accommodate the fluid ounces listed on Starbucks’ menu. For example, the serving cup used for
15
Grande beverages holds exactly 16 fluid ounces, when completely full. However, Starbucks’
16
standardized recipe for its Grande Latte calls to fill the serving cup up to “1/4 inch below cup rim.”
17
Thus, when used in conjunction with its standardized recipes, Starbucks’ serving cups do not
18
permit 12 ounce, 16 ounce, and 20 ounce Lattes.
19
4.
By underfilling its lattes, thereby shortchanging its customers, Starbucks has saved
20
countless millions of dollars in the cost of goods sold and was unjustly enriched by taking payment
21
for more product than it delivers. Plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of themselves and a nationwide
22
class of purchasers of Starbucks Lattes for breach of express warranty, breach of the implied
23
warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment, violation of California’s Consumers Legal
24
Remedies Act (“CLRA”), violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), violation of
25
California’s False Advertising Law (“FAL”), negligent misrepresentation, and fraud.
26
27
28
PARTIES
5.
Plaintiff Siera Strumlauf is a citizen of California who resides in San Francisco,
California. Prior to the filing of this complaint, Plaintiff Strumlauf visited her local Starbucks in
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
2
1
San Francisco approximately one to two times per week, where she would purchase Grande-sized
2
(16 fl. oz.) plain and vanilla-flavored Starbucks Lattes, which cost approximately $3.95. Plaintiff
3
Strumlauf saw the representation on Starbucks’ menu that her Grande-sized Starbucks Lattes
4
would be “16 fl. oz.” prior to and at the time of purchase, and understood this to be a representation
5
and warranty that her Lattes would, in fact, contain 16 fluid ounces. Plaintiff Strumlauf relied on
6
this representation and warranty in deciding to purchase her Starbucks Lattes, and this
7
representation and warranty was part of the basis of the bargain, in that she would not have
8
purchased Grande-sized Starbucks Lattes on the same terms if she had known that they were not, in
9
fact, 16 fluid ounces.
10
6.
Plaintiff Benjamin Robles is a citizen of California and has his permanent residence
11
in Carlsbad, California. In January 2015, Plaintiff Robles visited a Starbucks retail store in
12
Carlsbad, California, where he purchased a Grande-sized (16 fl. oz.) plain Starbucks Latte, which
13
cost approximately $3.95. Plaintiff Robles saw the representation on Starbucks’ menu that his
14
Grande-sized Starbucks Lattes would be “16 fl. oz.” prior to and at the time of purchase, and
15
understood this to be a representation and warranty that his Lattes would, in fact, contain 16 fluid
16
ounces. Plaintiff Robles relied on this representation and warranty in deciding to purchase his
17
Starbucks Lattes, and this representation and warranty was part of the basis of the bargain, in that
18
he would not have purchased Grande-sized Starbucks Lattes on the same terms if he had known
19
that they were not, in fact, 16 fluid ounces.
20
7.
Defendant Starbucks Corporation is a Washington corporation with its principal
21
place of business in Seattle, Washington. Starbucks is a leading American coffee company and
22
coffeehouse chain. Since its founding in 1971, Starbucks now operates 23,450 retail locations
23
worldwide, including 12,937 locations in the United States alone, which serve hot and cold drinks,
24
whole-bean coffee, espressos, teas, fresh juices, pastries, snacks, merchandise, and Starbucks
25
Lattes. In 2015, Starbucks realized approximately $19.2 billion in revenue, and employed 191,000
26
workers.
27
8.
28
Whenever reference is made in this Complaint to any representation, act, omission,
or transaction of Starbucks, that allegation shall mean that Starbucks did the act, omission, or
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
3
1
transaction through its officers, directors, employees, agents, and/or representatives while they
2
were acting within the actual or ostensible scope of their authority.
3
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4
9.
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(A)
5
because this case is a class action where the aggregate claims of all members of the proposed class
6
are in excess of $5,000,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs, and Plaintiffs, together with most
7
members of the proposed class, are citizens of states different from Defendant. This Court also has
8
supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
9
10.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, this Court is the proper venue for this action because
10
a substantial part of the events, omissions, and acts giving rise to the claims herein occurred in this
11
District. Plaintiff Strumlauf is a citizen of California, resides in this District, and purchased a
12
Starbucks Latte from Defendant in this District. Additionally, Starbucks distributed, advertised,
13
and sold its Lattes, which are the subject of the present complaint, in this District.
14
15
16
FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
A Brief Background On Lattes
11.
A latte is a coffee drink made with espresso and steamed milk. The term as used in
17
English is a shortened form of the Italian caffè latte, caffelatte, or caffellatte, which means “milk
18
coffee.” The word is also sometimes spelled “latté” or “lattè” in English.
19
20
21
12.
Traditionally, a latte is created by mixing steamed milk and espresso, which is then
topped with a thin layer of milk foam.
13.
In America, lattes rose to popularity in the 1980s and 1990s, beginning in affluent
22
urban markets such as Seattle and New York City. Specialty coffee products are now a booming
23
industry, which is driven by lattes. For example, a 2013 article from Forbes reports that “about
24
83% of U.S. adults drink coffee in one form or another.” Of these consumers, “about a third of
25
them drink a ‘gourmet’ coffee each day,” of which “lattes and cappuccinos seem to be the kind
26
27
28
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
4
1
ordered most frequently.” That said, “[i]t’s neck-and-neck [whether lattes or cappuccinos] gets the
2
top spot, but lattes currently seem to have the slight edge.”2
3
14.
While Starbucks does not release precise sales data on each of its products, there are
4
indications that its lattes constitute a substantial portion of its sales. For example, Starbucks
5
reported that it sold over 200 million pumpkin spice lattes (a limited seasonal offering) from 2003
6
to 2013, generating revenues of at least $100 million per year in recent seasons, according to
7
Forbes.
8
How Starbucks Lattes Are Created, Per The Company’s Standardized Recipe
9
15.
Starbucks Lattes are created according to a standardized recipe. As discussed in the
10
company’s Beverage Resource Manual, Starbucks Lattes are created with 4 simple steps, as shown
11
in the following diagram:
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
See http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertpassikoff/2013/09/16/u-s-consumers-drinking-a-lattemore-coffee/
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
16.
First, pursuant to the standardized recipe, the barista fills a standardized pitcher with
steamed milk up to an etched “fill to” line. Each pitcher has at least 3 lines: one each for Tall,
Grande, and Venti beverages. By having these “fill to” lines, the barista has no discretion to
individually determine how much milk to use in each Latte, nor is there any room for deviation.
17.
Second, pursuant to the standardized recipe, the barista adds shots of espresso to a
separate serving cup. One shot is used for Tall Lattes, while two shots are used for Grande and
Venti Lattes. Again, the barista has no discretion to individually determine how much espresso to
use. A calibrated machine dispenses each shot.
28
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
6
1
18.
Third, pursuant to the standardized recipe, the barista adds flavoring syrup, if
2
requested, according to the diagram above. Yet again, the barista has no discretion to individually
3
determine how much flavoring syrup to use. Calibrated pumps dispense the syrup in measured
4
amounts.
5
19.
Fourth, pursuant to the standardized recipe, the barista pours the steamed milk from
6
the pitcher into the serving cup with the espresso. The barista then tops the beverage with ¼” of
7
milk foam, leaving at least ¼” of space below the rim of the serving cup.
8
Starbucks Lattes Are Underfilled
9
10
11
20.
When Starbucks Lattes are created pursuant to the company’s standardized recipe,
the resulting beverages are underfilled. Several categories of evidence support these allegations.
21.
First, Plaintiffs’ counsel purchased and measured Starbucks Lattes at different
12
stores, in different states, in different sizes, and in different flavors. However, each Latte was
13
underfilled by approximately 25%. Additionally, no Starbucks Latte was actually filled to the fluid
14
ounces promised on Starbucks’ menu (e.g., Tall should be “12 fl. oz.,” Grande should be “16 fl.
15
oz.,” and Venti should be “20 fl. oz.”).
16
22.
Second, Plaintiffs’ counsel acquired several copies of the standardized pitcher
17
currently in use by Starbucks baristas to make Lattes. However, the etched “fill to” lines used to
18
measure the steamed milk are plainly set too low. For a Grande beverage, the “fill to” line
19
comprises less than 12 fluid ounces of milk. After adding 2 shots of espresso (2 fluid ounces), the
20
resulting beverage measures less than 14 fluid ounces at most. This falls far short of Starbucks’
21
“16 fl. oz.” representation.
22
23.
Third, the serving cups used by Starbucks simply do not accommodate the promised
23
beverage sizes in fluid ounces, per the standardized recipe for Lattes. For example, when filled to
24
the brink, the serving cup used for Grande beverages holds exactly 16 fluid ounces (the same is true
25
for the Tall cup, which holds exactly 12 fluid ounces, and the Venti cup, which holds exactly 20
26
fluid ounces). However, Starbucks’ recipe for its Grande Latte calls to fill the serving cup up to
27
“1/4 inch below cup rim.” Thus, ¼” of empty cup space exists above ¼” of milk foam, which sits
28
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
7
1
atop the fluid Latte. Accordingly, per the recipe, the Grande serving cup is just too small to hold a
2
16 fluid ounce latte.
3
24.
Moreover, Starbucks refuses to fill any hot beverage up to the brim of the cup.
4
Thus, under no circumstances will Starbucks ever serve a Grande Latte that actually meets the fluid
5
ounces represented on the menu.
6
25.
The milk foam added to the top of Starbucks Lattes does not count toward the
7
volume of its beverages. In the food science community, as well as in the weights and measures
8
community, foam is not measured on a volumetric basis. Rather, it is measured by mass. When
9
food scientists – and weights and measures inspectors – measure a liquid with foam, the
10
industry-standard procedure is to let the foam dissipate or eliminate the foam, then measure the
11
resulting liquid. Under this analysis, milk foam cannot compensate for an otherwise underfilled
12
Latte.
13
Starbucks Made A Conscious Decision To Underfill Its Lattes To Save Money On Milk
14
26.
Starbucks faced financial difficulty at the end of 2007. Its stock was down 42%,
15
and many of its stores were failing. In January 2008, Howard Schultz, Chairman of the board,
16
resumed his position as CEO (which he had left in 2000), and lead an effort to return the company
17
to profitability. As part of these efforts, Mr. Schultz made over $500 million of permanent cuts in
18
costs by laying off 4,000 employees, closing 800 retail locations in the United States, and reducing
19
the cost of goods sold.
20
27.
A key component to this cost-cutting effort was to reduce the amount of milk used
21
by baristas and in Starbucks beverages. As reported by Bloomberg in 2009, Starbucks
22
accomplished this objective by putting standardized, etched lines in its steaming pitchers. These
23
etched lines on the pitchers were made specifically for Starbucks, and are used by all Starbucks
24
retail locations. In doing so, barista discretion was eliminated, and the amount of milk in each latte
25
was standardized:
26
27
28
[T]he baristas were [previously] pouring millions of dollars of
leftover milk down the drain. As store managers for the first time
began thinking about how to operate more efficiently, an idea
emerged. It was simple, obvious, and made everyone wonder why
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
8
1
no one had thought of it before: They could put etched lines in the
steaming pitchers so that the baristas would know exactly how much
milk to use for each size drink. Before, they just guessed. “The
celebration of that line in the halls of Starbucks has become a
metaphor,” says Schultz. “How many other lines can we find?
We’ve found a lot because no one was ever looking. The people
who have found those lines have become part of the folklore.”
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
See http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2009-08-06/starbucks-howard-schultz-vs-dothoward-schultz (emphasis added).
28.
entitled “Record Milk Price Squeezing Starbucks,” “CEO Howard Schultz told reporters earlier
this week, following the company’s annual meeting in Seattle: ‘I am concerned about dairy
[prices], both domestically and around the world, and we are working feverishly with our
suppliers.’”
29.
24
25
26
27
Accordingly, by etching “fill to” lines on its steaming pitchers and removing
employee discretion, Starbucks was able to reduce its daily costs, and the company eventually
made a soaring comeback. Its stock went from a low of 3.92 on November 21, 2008 to 62.61 on
October 23, 2015.
30.
In the process, however, Starbucks cut too much milk. Stated otherwise, when a
standard recipe is used to create a drink that is purportedly 16 fluid ounces, the resulting beverage
should in fact be 16 fluid ounces. In connection with these cost-saving measures, Starbucks knew
that the etched “fill to” lines in its steaming pitchers resulted in underfilled beverages. Yet
Starbucks continued to advertise its Tall beverages as “12 fl. oz.,” its Grande beverages as “16 fl.
oz.,” and its Venti beverages as “20 fl. oz.”
22
23
Simply put, milk is an expensive ingredient. As reported by ABC News in a piece
CLASS REPRESENTATION ALLEGATIONS
31.
Plaintiffs seek to represent a class defined as all persons in the United States who
purchased a Starbucks Latte (the “Class”). Excluded from the Class are persons who made such
purchase for purpose of resale.
32.
Plaintiffs also seek to represent a subclass of all Class members who purchased a
Starbucks Latte in California (the “Subclass”).
28
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
9
1
33.
Members of the Class and Subclass are so numerous that their individual joinder
2
herein is impracticable. On information and belief, members of the Class and Subclass number in
3
the millions. The precise number of Class members and their identities are unknown to Plaintiffs
4
at this time but may be determined through discovery. Class members may be notified of the
5
pendency of this action by mail and/or publication through the distribution records of Defendant
6
and third party retailers and vendors.
7
34.
Common questions of law and fact exist as to all Class members and predominate
8
over questions affecting only individual Class members. Common legal and factual questions
9
include, but are not limited to: whether Starbucks Lattes are underfilled; whether Defendant
10
warranted that Starbucks Lattes contained a specific “fl. oz.” measurement for each size; whether
11
Defendant breached these warranties; and whether Defendant committed statutory and common
12
law fraud by doing so.
13
35.
The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the Class in that the
14
named Plaintiffs purchased Starbucks Lattes in reliance on the representations and warranties
15
described above and suffered a loss as a result of that purchase.
16
36.
Plaintiffs are adequate representatives of the Class and Subclass because their
17
interests do not conflict with the interests of the Class members they seek to represent, they have
18
retained competent counsel experienced in prosecuting class actions, and they intend to prosecute
19
this action vigorously. The interests of Class members will be fairly and adequately protected by
20
Plaintiffs and their counsel.
21
37.
The class mechanism is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient
22
adjudication of the claims of Class and Subclass members. Each individual Class member may
23
lack the resources to undergo the burden and expense of individual prosecution of the complex and
24
extensive litigation necessary to establish Defendant’s liability. Individualized litigation increases
25
the delay and expense to all parties and multiplies the burden on the judicial system presented by
26
the complex legal and factual issues of this case. Individualized litigation also presents a potential
27
for inconsistent or contradictory judgments. In contrast, the class action device presents far fewer
28
management difficulties and provides the benefits of single adjudication, economy of scale, and
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
10
1
comprehensive supervision by a single court on the issue of Defendant’s liability. Class treatment
2
of the liability issues will ensure that all claims and claimants are before this Court for consistent
3
adjudication of the liability issues.
4
COUNT I
5
Breach Of Express Warranty
6
7
38.
Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the allegations contained in all preceding
paragraphs of this complaint.
8
39.
9
Defendant.
10
40.
Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and on behalf of the proposed Class against
Defendant, as the designer, manufacturer, marketer, distributor, and/or seller,
11
expressly warranted that Starbucks Lattes contained “12 fl. oz.” for a Tall, “16 fl. oz.” for a
12
Grande, and “20 fl. oz.” for a Venti.
13
41.
In fact, Starbucks Lattes are not fit for such purposes because each of these express
14
warranties are false. Starbucks Lattes are underfilled. A Tall does not contain 12 fluid ounces, a
15
Grande does not contain 16 fluid ounces, and a Venti does not contain 20 fluid ounces.
16
42.
As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s breach of express warranty,
17
Plaintiffs and Class members have been injured and harmed because: (a) they would not have
18
purchased Starbucks Lattes on the same terms if the true facts were known concerning the Lattes’
19
quantity; (b) they paid a price premium for Starbucks Lattes due to Defendant’s promises that its
20
Lattes contained “12 fl. oz.,” “16 fl. oz.,” and “20 fl. oz.,” respectively; and (c) Starbucks Lattes
21
did not have the characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities as promised.
22
COUNT II
23
Breach Of The Implied Warranty Of Merchantability
24
25
43.
Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the allegations contained in all preceding
paragraphs of this complaint.
26
44.
27
Defendant.
Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and on behalf of the proposed Class against
28
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
11
1
45.
Defendant, as the designer, manufacturer, marketer, distributor, and/or seller,
2
impliedly warranted that Starbucks Lattes contained “12 fl. oz.” for a Tall, “16 fl. oz.” for a
3
Grande, and “20 fl. oz.” for a Venti.
4
46.
Defendant breached the warranty implied in the contract for the sale of Starbucks
5
Lattes because they could not pass without objection in the trade under the contract description, the
6
goods were not of fair average quality within the description, and the goods were unfit for their
7
intended and ordinary purpose because Starbucks Lattes are underfilled, in that a Tall does not
8
contain 12 fluid ounces, a Grande does not contain 16 fluid ounces, and a Venti does not contain 20
9
fluid ounces. As a result, Plaintiffs and Class members did not receive the goods as impliedly
10
11
12
warranted by Defendant to be merchantable.
47.
Plaintiffs and Class members purchased Starbucks Lattes in reliance upon
Defendant’s skill and judgment and the implied warranties of fitness for the purpose.
13
48.
Starbucks Lattes were not altered by Plaintiffs or Class members.
14
49.
Starbucks Lattes were defective when they left the exclusive control of Defendant.
15
50.
Defendant knew that Starbucks Lattes would be purchased and used without
16
17
18
19
additional testing by Plaintiffs and Class members.
51.
Starbucks Lattes were defectively designed and unfit for their intended purpose, and
Plaintiffs and Class members did not receive the goods as warranted.
52.
As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s breach of the implied warranty,
20
Plaintiffs and Class members have been injured and harmed because: (a) they would not have
21
purchased Starbucks Lattes on the same terms if the true facts were known concerning the Lattes’
22
quantity; (b) they paid a price premium for Starbucks Lattes due to Defendant’s promises that its
23
Lattes contained “12 fl. oz.,” “16 fl. oz.,” and “20 fl. oz.,” respectively; and (c) Starbucks Lattes
24
did not have the characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities as promised.
25
COUNT III
26
Unjust Enrichment
27
28
53.
Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the allegations contained in all preceding
paragraphs of this complaint.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
12
1
54.
Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and on behalf of the proposed Class against
2
Defendant.
3
55.
4
Starbucks Lattes.
5
56.
Plaintiffs and Class members conferred benefits on Defendant by purchasing
Defendant has been unjustly enriched in retaining the revenues derived from
6
Plaintiffs and Class members’ purchases of Starbucks Lattes. Retention of those moneys under
7
these circumstances is unjust and inequitable because Defendant misrepresented that Starbucks
8
Lattes contained “12 fl. oz.” for a Tall, “16 fl. oz.” for a Grande, and “20 fl. oz.” for a Venti. These
9
misrepresentations caused injuries to Plaintiffs and Class members because they would not have
10
11
purchased Starbucks Lattes on the same terms if the true facts were known.
57.
Because Defendant’s retention of the non-gratuitous benefits conferred on it by
12
Plaintiffs and Class members is unjust and inequitable, Defendant must pay restitution to Plaintiffs
13
and Class members for its unjust enrichment, as ordered by the Court.
14
COUNT IV
15
Violation Of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act,
16
California Civil Code §§ 1750, et seq.
17
18
58.
Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the allegations contained in all preceding
paragraphs of this complaint.
19
59.
20
against Defendant.
21
60.
Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and on behalf of the proposed Subclass
California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1770(a)(5), prohibits
22
“[r]epresenting that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses,
23
benefits, or quantities which they do not have or that a person has a sponsorship, approval, status,
24
affiliation, or connection which he or she does not have.”
25
26
27
28
61.
California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1770(a)(9), prohibits
“[a]dvertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised.”
62.
Defendant violated this provision by misrepresenting that Starbucks Lattes
contained “12 fl. oz.” for a Tall, “16 fl. oz.” for a Grande, and “20 fl. oz.” for a Venti.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
13
1
63.
Plaintiffs and the Subclass suffered injuries caused by Defendant because: (a) they
2
would not have purchased Starbucks Lattes on the same terms if the true facts were known
3
concerning the Lattes’ quantity; (b) they paid a price premium for Starbucks Lattes due to
4
Defendant’s promises that its Lattes contained “12 fl. oz.,” “16 fl. oz.,” and “20 fl. oz.,”
5
respectively; and (c) Starbucks Lattes did not have the characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or
6
quantities as promised.
7
64.
On or about January 29, 2016, prior to filing this action, a CLRA notice letter was
8
served on Defendant which complies in all respects with California Civil Code § 1782(a). Plaintiff
9
Robles sent Starbucks a letter via certified mail, return receipt requested, advising Starbucks that it
10
is in violation of the CLRA and demanding that it cease and desist from such violations and make
11
full restitution by refunding the monies received therefrom. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s
12
letter is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
13
14
65.
Wherefore, Plaintiffs seek damages, restitution, and injunctive relief for this
violation of the CLRA.
15
COUNT V
16
Violation Of California’s Unfair Competition Law,
17
California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.
18
19
66.
Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the allegations contained in all preceding
paragraphs of this complaint.
20
67.
21
against Defendant.
22
68.
Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and on behalf of the proposed Subclass
Defendant is subject to California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof.
23
Code §§ 17200, et seq. The UCL provides, in pertinent part: “Unfair competition shall mean and
24
include unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practices and unfair, deceptive, untrue or
25
misleading advertising ….”
26
69.
Defendant’s misrepresentations and other conduct, described herein, violated the
27
“unlawful” prong of the UCL by violating the CLRA as described herein; the FAL as described
28
herein; and Cal. Com. Code § 2607.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
14
1
70.
Defendant’s misrepresentations and other conduct, described herein, violated the
2
“unfair” prong of the UCL in that its conduct is substantially injurious to consumers, offends public
3
policy, and is immoral, unethical, oppressive, and unscrupulous, as the gravity of the conduct
4
outweighs any alleged benefits.
5
6
7
71.
Defendant violated the “fraudulent” prong of the UCL by making
misrepresentations about Starbucks Lattes, as described herein.
72.
Plaintiffs and the Subclass lost money or property as a result of Defendant’s UCL
8
violations because: (a) they would not have purchased Starbucks Lattes on the same terms if the
9
true facts were known concerning the Lattes’ quantity; (b) they paid a price premium for Starbucks
10
Lattes due to Defendant’s promises that its Lattes contained “12 fl. oz.,” “16 fl. oz.,” and “20 fl.
11
oz.,” respectively; and (c) Starbucks Lattes did not have the characteristics, ingredients, uses,
12
benefits, or quantities as promised.
13
COUNT VI
14
Violation Of California’s False Advertising Law,
15
California Business & Professions Code §§ 17500, et seq.
16
17
73.
Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the allegations contained in all preceding
paragraphs of this complaint.
18
74.
19
against Defendant.
20
75.
Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and on behalf of the proposed Subclass
California’s False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500, et seq.,
21
makes it “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated
22
before the public in this state, ... in any advertising device ... or in any other manner or means
23
whatever, including over the Internet, any statement, concerning ... personal property or services,
24
professional or otherwise, or performance or disposition thereof, which is untrue or misleading and
25
which is known, or which by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be untrue or
26
misleading.”
27
28
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
15
1
76.
Defendant committed acts of false advertising, as defined by §17500, by
2
misrepresenting that Starbucks Lattes contained “12 fl. oz.” for a Tall, “16 fl. oz.” for a Grande,
3
and “20 fl. oz.” for a Venti.
4
5
6
7
8
9
77.
Defendant knew or should have known, through the exercise of reasonable care that
its representations about Starbucks Lattes were untrue and misleading.
78.
Defendant’s actions in violation of § 17500 were false and misleading such that the
general public is and was likely to be deceived.
79.
Plaintiffs and the Subclass lost money or property as a result of Defendant’s FAL
violations because: (a) they would not have purchased Starbucks Lattes on the same terms if the
10
true facts were known concerning the Lattes’ quantity; (b) they paid a price premium for Starbucks
11
Lattes due to Defendant’s promises that its Lattes contained “12 fl. oz.,” “16 fl. oz.,” and “20 fl.
12
oz.,” respectively; and (c) Starbucks Lattes did not have the characteristics, ingredients, uses,
13
benefits, or quantities as promised.
14
COUNT VII
15
Negligent Misrepresentation
16
17
80.
Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the allegations contained in all preceding
paragraphs of this complaint.
18
81.
19
Defendant.
20
82.
21
22
Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and on behalf of the proposed Class against
As discussed above, Defendant misrepresented that Starbucks Lattes contained “12
fl. oz.” for a Tall, “16 fl. oz.” for a Grande, and “20 fl. oz.” for a Venti.
83.
At the time Defendant made these representations, Defendant knew or should have
23
known that these representations were false or made them without knowledge of their truth or
24
veracity.
25
26
84.
At an absolute minimum, Defendant negligently misrepresented and/or negligently
omitted material facts about Starbucks Lattes.
27
28
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
16
1
85.
The negligent misrepresentations and omissions made by Defendant, upon which
2
Plaintiffs and Class members reasonably and justifiably relied, were intended to induce and
3
actually induced Plaintiffs and Class members to purchase Starbucks Lattes.
4
5
6
7
86.
Plaintiffs and Class members would not have purchased Starbucks Lattes on the
same terms if the true facts had been known.
87.
The negligent actions of Defendant caused damage to Plaintiffs and Class members,
who are entitled to damages and other legal and equitable relief as a result.
8
COUNT VIII
9
Fraud
10
11
88.
Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the allegations contained in all preceding
paragraphs of this complaint.
12
89.
13
Defendant.
14
90.
Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and on behalf of the proposed Class against
As discussed above, Defendant provided Plaintiffs and Class members with false or
15
misleading material information and failed to disclose material facts about Starbucks Lattes,
16
including but not limited to the fact that they contained “12 fl. oz.” for a Tall, “16 fl. oz.” for a
17
Grande, and “20 fl. oz.” for a Venti.
18
91.
The misrepresentations and omissions made by Defendant, upon which Plaintiffs
19
and Class members reasonably and justifiably relied, were intended to induce and actually induced
20
Plaintiffs and Class members to purchase Starbucks Lattes.
21
22
92.
The fraudulent actions of Defendant caused damage to Plaintiffs and Class
members, who are entitled to damages and other legal and equitable relief as a result.
23
24
25
26
27
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, seek
judgment against Defendant, as follows:
a.
For an order certifying the nationwide Class and the Subclass under Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and naming Plaintiffs as the representatives of the
28
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
17
1
Class and Subclass and Plaintiffs’ attorneys as Class Counsel to represent members
2
of the Class and Subclass;
3
b.
4
5
herein;
c.
6
7
For an order declaring the Defendant’s conduct violates the statutes referenced
For an order finding in favor of Plaintiffs, the nationwide Class, and the Subclass on
all counts asserted herein;
d.
8
For compensatory and punitive damages in amounts to be determined by the Court
and/or jury;
9
e.
For prejudgment interest on all amounts awarded;
10
f.
For an order of restitution and all other forms of equitable monetary relief;
11
g.
For injunctive relief as pleaded or as the Court may deem proper; and
12
h.
For an order awarding Plaintiffs, the Class, and the Subclass their reasonable
13
attorneys’ fees and expenses and costs of suit.
14
15
16
DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury of all issues so triable.
Dated: March 16, 2016
17
Respectfully submitted,
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
18
By:
19
/s/ L. Timothy Fisher
L. Timothy Fisher
L. Timothy Fisher (State Bar No. 191626)
Julia A. Luster (State Bar No. 295031)
1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
jluster@bursor.com
20
21
22
23
24
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
Scott A. Bursor (State Bar No. 276006)
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 989-9113
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-Mail: scott@bursor.com
25
26
27
28
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
18
MILITARY JUSTICE ATTORNEYS, PLLC
Gerald Healy (pro hac vice motion forthcoming)
219 Scott Street, PMB 315
Beaufort, SC 29902
Telephone: (844) 334-5459
Facsimile: (843) 645-6530
E-Mail: gerry@militaryjusticeattorneys.com
1
2
3
4
5
8
MILITARY JUSTICE ATTORNEYS, PLLC
John Hafemann (State Bar No. 238758)
21 W. Park Avenue
Savannah, GA 31401
Telephone: (844) 334-5459
Facsimile: (843) 645-6530
E-Mail: john@militaryjusticeattorneys.com
9
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
19
EXHIBIT A
L. TIMOTHY FISHER
Tel: 9 2 5 . 3 0 0 . 4 4 5 5
Fax: 9 2 5 . 4 0 7 . 2 7 0 0
ltfisher@bur sor.com
1990 NORTH CALIFORNIA BLVD.
SUITE 940
WA L N UT C REEK, CA 945 96 -7 351
www.bursor.com
January 29, 2016
Via Certified Mail – Return Receipt Requested
Starbucks Corporation
Attn: Legal Department
2401 Utah Avenue South
Seattle, WA 98134
Re:
Demand Letter Pursuant to California Civil Code § 1782 and
Violation of U.C.C. §§ 2-313, 2-314
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter serves as a preliminary notice and demand for corrective action by Starbucks
Corporation (“Starbucks”) pursuant to California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California
Civil Code § 1782, on behalf of our client, Benjamin Robles, and a class of all similarly situated
purchasers (the “Class”) of Starbucks Caffè Latte, Flavored Latte, Skinny Latte, Skinny Flavored
Latte, Vanilla Latte, and Skinny Vanilla Latte beverages (collectively, “Starbucks Lattes”). This
letter also serves as notice pursuant to U.C.C. § 2-607(3)(A) concerning the breaches of express
and implied warranties described herein.
Starbucks Lattes are sold to consumers in the following sizes: Short (8 fl. oz.), Tall (12
fl. oz.), Grande (16 fl. oz.), and Venti (20 fl. oz.). However, instead of receiving a latte with
these represented fluid ounces, Starbucks systematically underfills its lattes. In short, Starbucks
is cheating purchasers by providing less fluid ounces in their lattes than they are paying for. See
U.C.C. §§ 2-313, 2-314.
By systematically underfilling Starbucks Lattes, Starbucks has violated and continues to
violate numerous provisions of California law, including but not limited to subsections (a)(5) and
(a)(9) of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code § 1770, which prohibits representing
that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or
quantities which they do not have, and advertising goods or services with intent not to sell them
as advertised.
In 2015, Mr. Robles purchased Starbucks Grande Caffè Lattes in San Diego and
Carlsbad, California. On behalf of our client and the putative class, we hereby demand that
Starbucks immediately (a) cease and desist from continuing to underfill Starbucks Lattes, and
(b) make full restitution to all purchasers of its mislabeled lattes of all purchase money obtained
from the sales thereof.
PAGE 2
It is further demanded that Starbucks preserve all documents and other evidence which
refer or relate to any of the above-described practices including, but not limited to, the following:
1.
All documents concerning recipes for Starbucks Lattes;
2.
All documents concerning the advertisement, marketing, or sale of
Starbucks Lattes; and
3.
All communications with customers concerning complaints or comments
concerning the practices described herein related to Starbucks Lattes.
This letter also serves as a thirty (30) day notice and demand requirement under California
Civil Code § 1782 for damages. Accordingly, should Starbucks fail to rectify the situation on a
class-wide basis within 30 days of receipt of this letter, we will seek actual damages, plus punitive
damages, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs.
Please contact me right away if you wish to discuss an appropriate way to remedy this
matter. If I do not hear from you promptly, I will take that as an indication that you are not
interested in doing so.
Very truly yours,
L. Timothy Fisher
Gerald R. Healy
Gerald R. Healy (Jan 29, 2016)
Mr. Gerald R. Healy
Owner/Managing Partner
Military Justice Attorneys, PLLC
gerry@militaryjusticeattorneys.com
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?