Ingredient-labeling class action
Defense of a proposed consumer class action involving erythritol, citric acid, and beverage-label representations.
David Joseph Scharf represented the public company in the Central District of California. The public docket identifies his April 8, 2026 motion to dismiss and supporting declarations and requests for judicial notice.
The dispute
The plaintiff alleged that labeling of Zero Sugar Real Ginger Ale was misleading because of alleged artificial ingredients. The defense motion challenged standing and the sufficiency of the claims and raised the relationship to an earlier-filed action.
Verified ruling: May 19, 2026
The court granted the public company’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), with leave to amend, addressing the plaintiff’s standing in light of evidence concerning the product’s reformulation. The court granted some requests for judicial notice and denied others.
Clarification: June 18, 2026
On reconsideration, the court clarified that the standing dismissal extended only to the erythritol claims. The citric-acid claims remained. The court stayed the action under the first-to-file rule pending a ruling on the citric-acid dismissal motion in the related Southern District case and administratively closed the case.
Later related ruling
The related federal court denied the motion to dismiss in October 2026. That decision is relevant to the earlier stay’s trigger. The historical stay was not a final defense judgment.
Scope of the result
The defense result is dismissal of the erythritol-based claims for lack of standing, subject to leave to amend. The citric-acid allegations were not defeated on the merits by these orders. Administrative closure did not finally adjudicate the remaining claims.
Underlying orders and records have been reviewed by the firm. Client and party names are omitted. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Historical results are not a live docket report.