Defendants Subway Restaurants, Inc., Franchise World Headquarters, LLC, and Subway Franchisee Advertising Trust Fund LTD (collectively, Subway) have filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint (SAC) against them. In early November, plaintiffs Karen Dhanowa and Nilima Amin filed their SAC against Subway for allegedly misrepresenting the composition of their tuna product.
The plaintiffs claimed Subway intentionally misled in their representations of their tuna by deliberately making “false and misleading claims about the composition of its Tuna Products to increase profits at the expense of unsuspecting buyers.” Their SAC cited common law fraud, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and violations of California Civil Code, California Business & Professions Code, and Business & Professions Code as causes of action. The complaint sought class certification, favorable judgements on all counts, compensatory, punitive, and statutory damages, litigation fees, and more.
In response to the SAC, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss on Wednesday in the Northern District of California. The defendants are seeking a dismissal of the complaint with prejudice in its entirety for its failure to state any claim on which relief may be granted. They assert that the second amended complaint (SAC) “fails to allege facts demonstrating that alleged representations by Subway about its tuna products are false or misleading to a reasonable consumer of tuna products.” They add that the SAC does not demonstrate that the plaintiffs rely on actually misleading statements prior to purchasing the tuna or that they were damaged as a result of the tuna.
The motion to dismiss further argues that the plaintiffs have not met pleading requirements since they “offer no facts demonstrating that the statements are actually false or explaining why any reasonable consumer would believe these statements are false or how the statements caused damages to the plaintiffs.”
The plaintiffs are represented by McNicholas & McNicholas and Dogra Law Group, while the defendants are represented by Baker McKenzie.
