Rodriguez v. Target Corporation

Filing 59

ORDER denying 57 Motion for Reconsideration re 57 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 55 Memorandum & Opinion,,, . filed by Jose Rodriguez, Sherri Morris. Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration is DENIED. "A party may move for reconsideration and obtain relief only when the party identifies an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Cho v. Blackberry L td., 991 F.3d 155, 170 (2d Cir. 2021) (cleaned up). "The standard for granting such a motion is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked -- matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiffs have not pointed to any allegations or authority that was overlooked in deciding De fendants' motion to dismiss. Defendants' motion already was denied in part because Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that Defendants' labeling claims may mislead a reasonable consumer about whether their products contain what Plai ntiffs call "fresh," "pure" or "natural" fish oil. In support of its surviving claims, Plaintiffs may argue that any statements on Defendants' labels beyond the words "fish oil" contribute to misleading consumers in that way. But for clarity and in order to narrow the issues in dispute, Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged that Defendants' labels may mislead consumers about how and where the fish in question are caught -- "wild" in "Alaska." The cases Plaintiffs cite are distinguishable because the labels in those cases emphasized the presence of desirable ingredients that allegedly made up only a small part of the products, e.g. "real fruit" or "whole grain." Here, Plaintiffs have not alleged that Defendants' products come in any part from fish that are caught other than in the manner described on the label. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 1/18/2023) (ate)

Case 1:22-cv-02982-LGS Document 59 Filed 01/18/23 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

JOSE RODRIGUEZ and SHERRI
MORRIS on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

CASE NO.: 1:22-CV-02982-LGS
Hon. Lorna G. Schofield
CLASS ACTION

v.
TARGET CORPORATION and LANG
PHARMA NUTRITION INC.

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION
AND MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

Defendants.

Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration is DENIED. “A party may move for reconsideration and obtain relief only when
the party identifies an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct
a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Cho v. Blackberry Ltd., 991 F.3d 155, 170 (2d Cir. 2021) (cleaned up).
“The standard for granting such a motion is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving
party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked -- matters, in other words, that might
reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
Plaintiffs have not pointed to any allegations or authority that was overlooked in deciding Defendants' motion to
dismiss. Defendants' motion already was denied in part because Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that Defendants'
labeling claims may mislead a reasonable consumer about whether their products contain what Plaintiffs call
"fresh," "pure" or "natural" fish oil. In support of its surviving claims, Plaintiffs may argue that any statements on
Defendants' labels beyond the words "fish oil" contribute to misleading consumers in that way. But for clarity and in
order to narrow the issues in dispute, Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged that Defendants' labels may mislead
consumers about how and where the fish in question are caught -- "wild" in "Alaska." The cases Plaintiffs cite are
distinguishable because the labels in those cases emphasized the presence of desirable ingredients that allegedly
made up only a small part of the products, e.g. "real fruit" or "whole grain." Here, Plaintiffs have not alleged that
Defendants' products come in any part from fish that are caught other than in the manner described on the label.
Dated: January 18, 2023
New York, New York

Case 1:22-cv-02982-LGS Document 59 Filed 01/18/23 Page 2 of 2

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiffs Jose Rodriguez and Sherri Morris hereby move for
reconsideration, under Local Civil Rule 6.3 and Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, of this
Court’s Opinion & Order granting in part and dismissing in part their Second Amended Complaint
against Defendants Target Corporation and Lang Pharma Nutrition, Inc. Dkt. No. 55. This Motion is
accompanied by a Memorandum setting forth the matters which Plaintiffs’ counsel believes the Court has
overlooked.

DATED: January 13, 2023

Respectfully submitted,
________________________
Michael D. Braun
KUZYK LAW, LLP
1999 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 1100
Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
JUST FOOD LAW PLLC
Maia Kats
5335 Wisconsin Ave, NW, Suite 440
Washington, DC 20015
Telephone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Counsel for Plaintiffs

-2-