Kumar v. Salov North America

Case # 14-cv-02411
Case Name Kumar v. Salov North America
Jurisdiction US District Court for N.D. CA
Summary

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are misleadingly marketing their olive oil as being "imported from Italy."  Reasonable consumers can assume this means the oil is made from olives grown in Italy or, at least, pressed in Italy.  Rather, the olives are grown and pressed in a number of countries, then shipped to Italy where they are bottled for export.  As a result of these misleading claims, consumers are lead to pay a premium for a product they expect is truly a product of Italy.

Final Approval Date 07/07/2017
Result
  1. Final Approval granted.
  2. The Court overruled all objections.
    1. The Court noted that Objector Sweeney's objections were "nearly identical" to those filed by Patrick Sweeney in another case. (See Final Approval Order, page 6, footnote)
    2. The Court also noted that Objector Frank's objections had largely been previously overruled. (See Final Approval Order, page 7, footnote)
  3. Objectors Sweeney and Frank appealed the Final Approval.
  4. The Sweeney appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (failure to file a timely appeal).
  5. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court decision over Objector Frank's appeal, finding that they did not abuse their discretion.
Dismissal of Last Appeal 01/04/2019
Attachments Docket Report.pdf
Amended Class Action Complaint.pdf
Preliminary Approval Order.pdf
Plaintiff's Response to Objections.pdf
Defendant's Response to Objections.pdf
Final Approval Order.pdf
Memorandum Affirming District Court Decision.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Pamela Sweeney

Objectors Pamela Sweeney
Signers Pamela Sweeney
Attorneys
Summary
  1. Claims administration process lacks oversight.
  2. Attorneys' fees are divorced from the actual recovery by the class.
  3. Notice is defective, since objection requirements are confusingly phrased.
  4. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
Attachments Objection of Pamela A. Sweeney.pdf
Appeal of Objector Sweeney.pdf
Dismissal of Sweeney Appeal.pdf
Sweeney Appeal Docket.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Theodore H. Frank

Objectors Theodore H. Frank
Signers Theodore H. Frank
William I. Chamberlain
Attorneys William I. Chamberlain
Melissa Holyoak
Anna St. John
Summary
  1. Settlement disproportionately favors class counsel at the expense of the class.
  2. Settlement improperly creates a zero-recovery sub-class.
  3. Settlement unnecessarily burdens objectors.
Attachments Objection of Theodore H. Frank.pdf
Appeal of Objector Frank.pdf
Holyoak Appearance for Objector-Appellant Frank.pdf
St. John Appearance for Objector-Appellant Frank.pdf
Frank Appeal Docket.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated