Ree v. Pepsico, Inc., No. 8:14cv328 (C.D. Cal.), Hall v. Pepsico Inc., No. 3:14 cv 1099 (N.D. Cal.), and Ibusuki v. Pepsico, Inc., No. 2:14cv1724 (C.D. Cal.): Identical actions alleging that Pepsi One and Diet Pepsi beverages purchased by plaintiff contained 4-methylimidazole (“4-Mel”), a chemical subject to California’s Proposition 65. Ree.  Hall.  Ibusuki.

Shaouli v. Barney’s Premium Foods LLC, No. BC538558 (L.A. Super.): Putative class action alleging that several of defendant’s “Barney’s Butter” products are misbranded under the Sherman Act because the label lists evaporated cane juice instead of “sugar” or “dried cane syrup.” Complaint.

Merritt v. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of L.A., No. 4:14cv1067 (N.D. Cal.):  Putative class action complaint transferred from the Southern District of California seeks equitable and injunctive relief and alleges that defendant’s products are misbranded and misleading because defendant’s sodas state that they contain no artificial flavoring or chemical preservatives but allegedly contain phosphoric acid. Complaint.

Park v. Goya Foods Inc., No. 2:14cv1789 (C.D. Cal.): Putative class action alleging claims under California’s UCL, CLRA and FAL and for breach of contract, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and breach of warranty.  The complaint alleges defendant mislabeled Malta Goya as “nutritious” when it contains 4-Mel. Complaint.