{"data":{"filter_options":{"titles":[{"name":"Partner","value":"Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops","value":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops"},{"name":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office","value":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office"},{"name":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono","value":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono"},{"name":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer","value":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer"},{"name":"Partner / General Counsel","value":"Partner / General Counsel"},{"name":"Partner / Chairman, Saudi Arabia Practice","value":"Partner / Chairman, Saudi Arabia Practice"},{"name":"K\u0026S Talent Partner","value":"K\u0026S Talent Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Chief Human Resources Officer","value":"Partner / Chief Human Resources Officer"},{"name":"Chairman","value":"Chairman"},{"name":"Senior Counsel","value":"Senior Counsel"},{"name":"Associate Director, E-Discovery Operations","value":"Associate Director, E-Discovery Operations"},{"name":"Counsel","value":"Counsel"},{"name":"Senior Associate","value":"Senior Associate"},{"name":"Associate","value":"Associate"},{"name":"Senior Lawyer","value":"Senior Lawyer"},{"name":"Senior Attorney","value":"Senior Attorney"},{"name":"Attorney","value":"Attorney"},{"name":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions","value":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions"},{"name":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor","value":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor"},{"name":"Consultant","value":"Consultant"},{"name":"Government Relations Advisor","value":"Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Associate General Counsel","value":"Associate General Counsel"},{"name":"Patent Agent","value":"Patent Agent"},{"name":"Senior Advisor","value":"Senior Advisor"},{"name":"Senior Government Relations Advisor","value":"Senior Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Chief Revenue Officer","value":"Chief Revenue Officer"},{"name":"Chief Recruiting Officer","value":"Chief Recruiting Officer"},{"name":"Chief Lawyer Talent Development Officer","value":"Chief Lawyer Talent Development Officer"},{"name":"Chief Information Officer","value":"Chief Information Officer"},{"name":"Chief Financial Officer","value":"Chief Financial Officer"},{"name":"Tax Consultant","value":"Tax Consultant"},{"name":"Director of Operations","value":"Director of Operations"},{"name":"Chief Marketing Officer","value":"Chief Marketing Officer"},{"name":"Senior Office Manager","value":"Senior Office Manager"},{"name":"Director of Community Affairs","value":"Director of Community Affairs"},{"name":"Director of Facilities \u0026 Admin Operations","value":"Director of Facilities \u0026 Admin Operations"},{"name":"Pro Bono Deputy","value":"Pro Bono Deputy"},{"name":"Director of Operations Europe","value":"Director of Operations Europe"},{"name":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration","value":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration"},{"name":"Director of Office Operations","value":"Director of Office Operations"},{"name":"Deputy General Counsel","value":"Deputy General Counsel"}],"schools":[{"name":"(Commercial Law), in front of Monash University, Australia","value":3045},{"name":"Aberystwyth University","value":3004},{"name":"Albany Law School","value":2118},{"name":"American University Washington College of Law","value":3042},{"name":"American University, Washington College of Law","value":3024},{"name":"Appalachian School of Law","value":2891},{"name":"Ateneo de Manila University","value":2914},{"name":"Ave Maria School of Law","value":2892},{"name":"Baylor University School of Law","value":181},{"name":"Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law","value":2619},{"name":"Binghamton University","value":3002},{"name":"Boston College Law School","value":245},{"name":"Boston University School of Law","value":247},{"name":"BPP Law School Leeds","value":2642},{"name":"BPP Law School London","value":2782},{"name":"BPP University","value":2984},{"name":"Brooklyn Law School","value":2705},{"name":"Cairo University, Law School","value":2962},{"name":"California Western School of Law","value":315},{"name":"Capital University Law School","value":327},{"name":"Case Western Reserve University School of Law","value":345},{"name":"Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law","value":2235},{"name":"Chapman University School of Law","value":377},{"name":"Charleston School of Law","value":2910},{"name":"City Law School, London","value":2998},{"name":"City Law School","value":2857},{"name":"Clark University","value":3006},{"name":"Cleveland-Marshall College of Law","value":426},{"name":"Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs","value":3008},{"name":"Columbia University School of Law","value":485},{"name":"Columbia University","value":3126},{"name":"Columbus School of Law, Catholic University of America","value":3010},{"name":"Columbus School of Law","value":350},{"name":"Concord Law School of Kaplan University","value":1026},{"name":"Cornell Law School","value":512},{"name":"Creighton University School of Law","value":518},{"name":"Creighton University","value":3025},{"name":"Cumberland School of Law","value":1759},{"name":"CUNY School of Law","value":2893},{"name":"David A. Clarke School of Law","value":2399},{"name":"Deakin University School of Law","value":2907},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":3060},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":565},{"name":"Dickinson School of Law","value":2719},{"name":"Drake University Law School","value":609},{"name":"Duke University School of Law","value":613},{"name":"Duquesne University School of Law","value":614},{"name":"Dwayne O. Andreas School of Law","value":173},{"name":"Edinburgh Law School","value":3160},{"name":"Emory University School of Law","value":659},{"name":"ESADE Business and Law School – Universidad Ramon Llull","value":3215},{"name":"Fachseminare von Fürstenberg","value":2918},{"name":"Faculté Libre de Droit, Université Catholique de Lille","value":3055},{"name":"Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb","value":2983},{"name":"Faculty of Law","value":2944},{"name":"Faculty of Law","value":3039},{"name":"Federal University of Rio de Janeiro","value":3022},{"name":"Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul School of Law (Brazil)","value":3062},{"name":"Florida A\u0026M University College of Law","value":699},{"name":"Florida Coastal School of Law","value":2894},{"name":"Florida International College of Law","value":707},{"name":"Florida State University College of Law","value":720},{"name":"Fordham University School of Law","value":722},{"name":"Franklin Pierce Law Center","value":734},{"name":"Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena","value":3015},{"name":"George Mason University School of Law","value":752},{"name":"George Washington University Law School","value":753},{"name":"Georgetown University Law Center","value":755},{"name":"Georgia State University College of Law","value":761},{"name":"Ghent Law School","value":2793},{"name":"Golden Gate University School of Law","value":770},{"name":"Gonzaga University School of Law","value":772},{"name":"Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva","value":2997},{"name":"Hamline University School of Law","value":811},{"name":"Harvard Law School","value":824},{"name":"Hebrew University of Jerusalem Faculty of Law","value":2994},{"name":"Hofstra University School of Law","value":858},{"name":"Howard University School of Law","value":872},{"name":"Huazhong University of Science and Technology","value":3016},{"name":"Humboldt University of Berlin","value":3012},{"name":"Indiana University School of Law","value":2711},{"name":"Indiana University School of Law","value":890},{"name":"International Association of Privacy Professionals","value":3009},{"name":"J. Reuben Clark Law School","value":262},{"name":"Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center","value":2084},{"name":"James Cook University of North Queensland","value":3034},{"name":"Jean Moulin University Lyon 3, France","value":2938},{"name":"Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health","value":2992},{"name":"Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen Rechtswissenschaft (Germany)","value":3063},{"name":"Kansas City School of Law","value":2247},{"name":"Keio University","value":2968},{"name":"Kent College of Law","value":883},{"name":"Kline School of Law","value":611},{"name":"KU Leuven","value":3007},{"name":"Levin College of Law","value":2189},{"name":"Lewis and Clark Law School","value":1089},{"name":"Liberty University School of Law","value":1094},{"name":"Lincoln College of Law","value":2253},{"name":"LL.M. in International Crime and Justice UNICRI","value":2937},{"name":"Loyola Law School","value":2895},{"name":"Loyola University Chicago School of Law","value":1135},{"name":"Loyola University New Orleans College of Law","value":1136},{"name":"Marquette University Law School","value":1176},{"name":"McGeorge School of Law","value":2402},{"name":"McGill University","value":2659},{"name":"Melbourne Law School","value":2899},{"name":"Mercer University Walter F. George School of Law","value":1221},{"name":"Mexico Autonomous Institute of Technology","value":2996},{"name":"Michael E. Moritz College of Law","value":2728},{"name":"Michigan State University College of Law","value":1245},{"name":"Mississippi College School of Law","value":1285},{"name":"Moscow State University","value":2815},{"name":"National and Kapodistrian University of Athens","value":3032},{"name":"National Law University Jodhpur","value":3020},{"name":"National University of Singapore, Faculty of Law","value":2662},{"name":"New England School of Law","value":2886},{"name":"New York Law School","value":1403},{"name":"New York University School of Law","value":1406},{"name":"Norman Adrian Wiggins School of Law","value":323},{"name":"North Carolina Central University School of Law","value":1417},{"name":"Northeastern University School of Law","value":1430},{"name":"Northern Illinois University College of Law","value":1432},{"name":"Northwestern Pritzker School of Law","value":1451},{"name":"Notre Dame Law School","value":2278},{"name":"Ohio Northern University Law School","value":3036},{"name":"Oklahoma City University School of Law","value":1487},{"name":"Osgoode Hall Law School","value":3124},{"name":"Pace University School of Law","value":1516},{"name":"Panteion University","value":3033},{"name":"Paul M. Hebert Law Center","value":2713},{"name":"Pennsylvania State University, Dickinson School of Law","value":1562},{"name":"Pepperdine University School of Law","value":1570},{"name":"Pettit College of Law","value":1473},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile","value":3203},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru","value":3011},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Javeriana","value":3013},{"name":"Pontificia Universidade Catolica de Sao Paulo","value":3095},{"name":"Prince Sultan University College of Law","value":3167},{"name":"Queens College, Cambridge","value":3003},{"name":"Quinnipiac University School of Law","value":1626},{"name":"Ralph R. Papitto School of Law","value":1686},{"name":"Regent University School of Law","value":1649},{"name":"Rice University","value":3043},{"name":"Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg","value":3049},{"name":"Rutgers University School of Law-Newark","value":1699},{"name":"Rutgers University School of Law","value":1697},{"name":"S.J. Quinney College of Law","value":2408},{"name":"Saint Louis University School of Law","value":1732},{"name":"Salmon P. Chase College of Law","value":1433},{"name":"Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law","value":103},{"name":"Santa Clara University School of Law","value":1771},{"name":"Seattle University School of Law","value":1787},{"name":"Seton Hall University School of Law","value":1790},{"name":"Shepard Broad Law Center","value":1460},{"name":"South Texas College of Law","value":2721},{"name":"Southern Illinois University School of Law","value":1849},{"name":"Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law","value":1852},{"name":"Southern University Law Center","value":1857},{"name":"Southwestern Law School","value":1876},{"name":"St. John's University School of Law","value":2724},{"name":"St. Mary's University School of Law","value":1896},{"name":"St. Thomas University School of Law","value":1746},{"name":"Stanford Law School","value":1904},{"name":"Stetson University College of Law","value":1910},{"name":"Sturm College of Law","value":2184},{"name":"Suffolk University Law School","value":1921},{"name":"Syracuse University College of Law","value":1956},{"name":"Temple University Beasley School of Law","value":1974},{"name":"Texas A\u0026M School of Law","value":1980},{"name":"Texas Tech University School of Law","value":1994},{"name":"Texas Wesleyan University School of Law","value":1996},{"name":"The College of Law Australia","value":3091},{"name":"The College of Law, London","value":2935},{"name":"The John Marshall Law School","value":2034},{"name":"The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School","value":2896},{"name":"The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law","value":2990},{"name":"The University of Akron School of Law","value":2143},{"name":"The University of Alabama School of Law","value":2045},{"name":"The University of Birmingham, U.K.","value":2796},{"name":"The University of Iowa College of Law","value":2206},{"name":"The University of Texas School of Law","value":2055},{"name":"The University of Tulsa College of Law","value":2407},{"name":"Thomas Jefferson School of Law","value":685},{"name":"Thomas M. Cooley Law School","value":2729},{"name":"Thurgood Marshall School of Law","value":1992},{"name":"Tianjin University of Commerce","value":2995},{"name":"Tulane University Law School","value":2113},{"name":"UC Davis School of Law","value":2160},{"name":"UCLA School of Law","value":2162},{"name":"Universidad Católica de Honduras","value":2916},{"name":"Universidad Francisco Marroquin","value":3090},{"name":"Universidad Panamericana","value":2904},{"name":"Universidad Torcuato di Tella","value":3035},{"name":"Universidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Direito","value":3028},{"name":"Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie","value":2977},{"name":"Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi","value":3135},{"name":"University at Buffalo Law School","value":1928},{"name":"University College Dublin Law School","value":2900},{"name":"University of Alberta Faculty of Law","value":3088},{"name":"University of Amsterdam","value":2980},{"name":"University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law","value":2149},{"name":"University of Arkansas School of Law","value":2154},{"name":"University of Baltimore School of Law","value":2156},{"name":"University of California College of the Law","value":3196},{"name":"University of California Hastings College of Law","value":2158},{"name":"University of California Irvine School of Law","value":2161},{"name":"University of California, Berkeley, School of Law","value":2159},{"name":"University of California, Davis","value":3019},{"name":"University of Cambridge, U.K","value":2991},{"name":"University of Canterbury","value":2981},{"name":"University of Central Florida","value":3027},{"name":"University of Chester Law School","value":3005},{"name":"University of Chicago Law School","value":2174},{"name":"University of Chicago","value":3038},{"name":"University of Cincinnati College of Law","value":2175},{"name":"University of Colorado School of Law","value":2177},{"name":"University of Connecticut School of Law","value":2180},{"name":"University of Dayton School of Law","value":2182},{"name":"University of Detroit Mercy School of Law","value":2185},{"name":"University of East Anglia","value":3000},{"name":"University of Florida, Levin College of Law","value":3188},{"name":"University of Georgia School of Law","value":2190},{"name":"University of Houston Law Center","value":2197},{"name":"University of Hull","value":3040},{"name":"University of Idaho College of Law","value":2201},{"name":"University of Illinois College of Law","value":2204},{"name":"University of Kansas School of Law","value":2208},{"name":"University of Kentucky College of Law","value":2210},{"name":"University of La Verne College of Law","value":2211},{"name":"University of Law, London","value":2999},{"name":"University of Leeds School of Law","value":2850},{"name":"University of Lethbridge","value":3030},{"name":"University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law","value":2214},{"name":"University of Maine School of Law","value":2391},{"name":"University of Maryland School of Law","value":2224},{"name":"University of Miami School of Law","value":2236},{"name":"University of Michigan Law School","value":2237},{"name":"University of Minnesota Law School","value":2243},{"name":"University of Mississippi School of Law","value":2244},{"name":"University of Missouri School of Law","value":2246},{"name":"University of Montana School of Law","value":2048},{"name":"University of Nebraska College of Law","value":2744},{"name":"University of New Mexico School of Law","value":2262},{"name":"University of North Carolina School of Law","value":2266},{"name":"University of North Dakota School of Law","value":2271},{"name":"University of Oklahoma Law Center","value":2747},{"name":"University of Oregon School of Law","value":2281},{"name":"University of Pennsylvania Law School","value":2282},{"name":"University of Pittsburgh School of Law","value":2354},{"name":"University of Richmond School of Law","value":2370},{"name":"University of San Diego School of Law","value":2377},{"name":"University of San Francisco School of Law","value":2378},{"name":"University of South Carolina School of Law","value":2750},{"name":"University of South Dakota School of Law","value":2387},{"name":"University of Southern California Gould School of Law","value":3051},{"name":"University of St. Thomas School of Law","value":2751},{"name":"University of Sydney Law School","value":3031},{"name":"University of Tennessee College of Law","value":2051},{"name":"University of the West of England, Bristol","value":3001},{"name":"University of Toledo College of Law","value":2406},{"name":"University of Toronto","value":2912},{"name":"University of Utah","value":3026},{"name":"University of Virginia School of Law","value":2410},{"name":"University of Washington School of Law","value":2412},{"name":"University of Wisconsin Law School","value":2419},{"name":"University of Wyoming College of Law","value":2429},{"name":"University of Zürich","value":3037},{"name":"University Paris Dauphine","value":2976},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":3052},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":2975},{"name":"USC Gould School of Law","value":2389},{"name":"Utrecht University","value":3085},{"name":"Valparaiso University School of Law","value":2441},{"name":"Vanderbilt University School of Law","value":2442},{"name":"Vermont Law School","value":2451},{"name":"Villanova University School of Law","value":2454},{"name":"Wake Forest University School of Law","value":2471},{"name":"Washburn University School of Law","value":2482},{"name":"Washington and Lee University School of Law","value":2484},{"name":"Washington College of Law","value":61},{"name":"Washington University in St. Louis School of Law","value":2489},{"name":"Wayne State University Law School","value":2493},{"name":"West Virginia University College of Law","value":2517},{"name":"Western New England College School of Law","value":2528},{"name":"Western State College of Law","value":2897},{"name":"Wharton School of Business","value":3044},{"name":"Whittier Law School","value":2564},{"name":"Widener University Delaware Law School","value":2569},{"name":"Willamette University College of Law","value":2573},{"name":"William \u0026 Mary Law School","value":462},{"name":"William H. Bowen School of Law","value":2150},{"name":"William Mitchell College of Law","value":2758},{"name":"William S. Boyd School of Law","value":2256},{"name":"William S. Richardson School of Law","value":2195},{"name":"Wilmington University","value":2993},{"name":"Yale Law School","value":2605}],"offices":[{"name":"Abu Dhabi","value":13},{"name":"Atlanta","value":1},{"name":"Austin","value":12},{"name":"Brussels","value":23},{"name":"Charlotte","value":8},{"name":"Chicago","value":21},{"name":"Dallas","value":28},{"name":"Denver","value":22},{"name":"Dubai","value":6},{"name":"Frankfurt","value":9},{"name":"Geneva","value":15},{"name":"Houston","value":4},{"name":"London","value":5},{"name":"Los Angeles","value":19},{"name":"Miami","value":25},{"name":"New York","value":3},{"name":"Northern Virginia","value":24},{"name":"Paris","value":14},{"name":"Riyadh","value":27},{"name":"Sacramento","value":20},{"name":"San Francisco","value":10},{"name":"Silicon Valley","value":11},{"name":"Singapore","value":16},{"name":"Sydney","value":26},{"name":"Tokyo","value":18},{"name":"Washington, D.C.","value":2}],"capabilities":[{"name":"Corporate, Finance and Investments","value":"cg-1"},{"name":"Activist Defense","value":72},{"name":"Capital Markets","value":26},{"name":"Construction and Procurement","value":40},{"name":"Corporate Governance","value":27},{"name":"Emerging Companies and Venture Capital","value":80},{"name":"Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation","value":28},{"name":"Energy and Infrastructure Projects","value":35},{"name":"Financial Restructuring","value":10},{"name":"Fund Finance","value":134},{"name":"Global Human Capital and Compliance ","value":121},{"name":"Investment Funds and Asset Management","value":78},{"name":"Leveraged Finance","value":29},{"name":"Mergers and Acquisitions (M\u0026A)","value":32},{"name":"Middle East and Islamic Finance and Investment","value":31},{"name":"Private Equity","value":33},{"name":"Public Companies","value":126},{"name":"Real Estate","value":36},{"name":"Structured Finance and Securitization","value":82},{"name":"Tax","value":37},{"name":"Technology Transactions","value":115},{"name":"Government Matters","value":"cg-2"},{"name":"Antitrust","value":1},{"name":"Data, Privacy and Security","value":6},{"name":"Environmental, Health and Safety","value":71},{"name":"FDA and Life Sciences","value":21},{"name":"Government Advocacy and Public Policy","value":23},{"name":"Government Contracts","value":116},{"name":"Healthcare","value":24},{"name":"Innovation Protection","value":135},{"name":"International Trade","value":25},{"name":"National Security and Corporate Espionage","value":110},{"name":"Securities Enforcement and Regulation","value":20},{"name":"Special Matters and Government Investigations","value":11},{"name":"Trial and Global Disputes","value":"cg-3"},{"name":"Antitrust ","value":129},{"name":"Appellate, Constitutional and Administrative Law","value":2},{"name":"Bankruptcy and Insolvency Litigation","value":38},{"name":"Class Action Defense","value":3},{"name":"Commercial Litigation","value":5},{"name":"Corporate and Securities Litigation","value":19},{"name":"E-Discovery","value":7},{"name":"Global Construction and Infrastructure Disputes","value":4},{"name":"Innovation Protection","value":136},{"name":"Intellectual Property","value":13},{"name":"International Arbitration and Litigation","value":14},{"name":"Labor and Employment","value":15},{"name":"Product Liability","value":17},{"name":"Professional Liability","value":18},{"name":"Toxic \u0026 Environmental Torts","value":16},{"name":"Industries / Issues","value":"cg-4"},{"name":"Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning","value":133},{"name":"Automotive, Transportation and Mobility","value":106},{"name":"Buy American","value":124},{"name":"Crisis Management","value":111},{"name":"Doing Business in Latin America","value":132},{"name":"Energy Transition","value":131},{"name":"Energy","value":102},{"name":"Environmental Agenda","value":125},{"name":"Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG)","value":127},{"name":"Financial Services","value":107},{"name":"Focus on Women's Health","value":112},{"name":"Food and Beverage","value":105},{"name":"Higher Education","value":109},{"name":"Life Sciences and Healthcare","value":103},{"name":"Russia/Ukraine","value":128},{"name":"Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs)","value":123},{"name":"Technology","value":118}]},"title_id":null,"school_id":null,"office_id":"19","capability_id":null,"extra_filter_id":null,"extra_filter_type":null,"q":null,"starts_with":"B","per_page":12,"people":[{"id":426841,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5738,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eCraig Bessenger focuses on complex civil litigation and white-collar criminal defense. His clients include Fortune 200 companies, entertainment companies, healthcare providers, and financial institutions. He represents both plaintiffs and defendants in federal and state courts. Craig has litigated business, partnership, and contractual disputes, professional liability, banking and mortgage cases, and intellectual property matters. His white-collar experience spans various areas, including securities, antitrust, healthcare, and environmental violations, complex fraud and money laundering schemes, and internal investigations.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"craig-bessenger","email":"cbessenger@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eObtained summary judgment on behalf of the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emovie studio, directors, and producer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;involved in the creation of a multibillion-dollar movie franchise in a copyright infringement case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor movie studio\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against claims relating to the collection of foreign revenue, and obtained an affirmance of the trial court\u0026rsquo;s ruling on appeal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated an anti-SLAPP motion brought against a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor media company\u003c/strong\u003e, and obtained an affirmance of the trial court\u0026rsquo;s ruling on appeal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved a multimillion-dollar settlement in a professional liability action brought on behalf of a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eclosely held corporation\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented publicly-traded\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ehealthcare company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in numerous class actions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eforeign national\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a federal criminal investigation into an allegedly fraudulent scheme to circumvent state and federal environmental regulations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ebank directors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in civil enforcement actions brought by federal regulatory authorities.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emedical device manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an investigation by state regulatory authorities.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eproducer of high-quality automotive images\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a copyright infringement action against an online tech company arising from the unauthorized use of its photographs. A confidential settlement agreement was reached on the eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":11,"guid":"11.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":18,"guid":"18.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":24,"guid":"24.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Bessenger","nick_name":"Craig","clerkships":[{"name":"Judicial Clerk, Hon. A. Howard Matz, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California","years_held":"2010 - 2011"}],"first_name":"Craig","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":32,"law_schools":[{"id":2158,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"Magna Cum Laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2006-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"H.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eCraig Bessenger focuses on complex civil litigation and white-collar criminal defense. His clients include Fortune 200 companies, entertainment companies, healthcare providers, and financial institutions. He represents both plaintiffs and defendants in federal and state courts. Craig has litigated business, partnership, and contractual disputes, professional liability, banking and mortgage cases, and intellectual property matters. His white-collar experience spans various areas, including securities, antitrust, healthcare, and environmental violations, complex fraud and money laundering schemes, and internal investigations.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eObtained summary judgment on behalf of the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emovie studio, directors, and producer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;involved in the creation of a multibillion-dollar movie franchise in a copyright infringement case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor movie studio\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against claims relating to the collection of foreign revenue, and obtained an affirmance of the trial court\u0026rsquo;s ruling on appeal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated an anti-SLAPP motion brought against a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor media company\u003c/strong\u003e, and obtained an affirmance of the trial court\u0026rsquo;s ruling on appeal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved a multimillion-dollar settlement in a professional liability action brought on behalf of a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eclosely held corporation\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented publicly-traded\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ehealthcare company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in numerous class actions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eforeign national\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a federal criminal investigation into an allegedly fraudulent scheme to circumvent state and federal environmental regulations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ebank directors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in civil enforcement actions brought by federal regulatory authorities.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emedical device manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an investigation by state regulatory authorities.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eproducer of high-quality automotive images\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a copyright infringement action against an online tech company arising from the unauthorized use of its photographs. A confidential settlement agreement was reached on the eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":8096}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-05-26T04:57:19.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T04:57:19.000Z","searchable_text":"Bessenger{{ FIELD }}Obtained summary judgment on behalf of the movie studio, directors, and producer involved in the creation of a multibillion-dollar movie franchise in a copyright infringement case.{{ FIELD }}Successfully defended a major movie studio against claims relating to the collection of foreign revenue, and obtained an affirmance of the trial court’s ruling on appeal.{{ FIELD }}Defeated an anti-SLAPP motion brought against a major media company, and obtained an affirmance of the trial court’s ruling on appeal.{{ FIELD }}Achieved a multimillion-dollar settlement in a professional liability action brought on behalf of a closely held corporation.{{ FIELD }}Represented publicly-traded healthcare company in numerous class actions.{{ FIELD }}Represented a foreign national in a federal criminal investigation into an allegedly fraudulent scheme to circumvent state and federal environmental regulations.{{ FIELD }}Represented bank directors in civil enforcement actions brought by federal regulatory authorities.{{ FIELD }}Represented a medical device manufacturer in an investigation by state regulatory authorities.{{ FIELD }}Represented a producer of high-quality automotive images in a copyright infringement action against an online tech company arising from the unauthorized use of its photographs. A confidential settlement agreement was reached on the eve of trial.{{ FIELD }}Craig Bessenger focuses on complex civil litigation and white-collar criminal defense. His clients include Fortune 200 companies, entertainment companies, healthcare providers, and financial institutions. He represents both plaintiffs and defendants in federal and state courts. Craig has litigated business, partnership, and contractual disputes, professional liability, banking and mortgage cases, and intellectual property matters. His white-collar experience spans various areas, including securities, antitrust, healthcare, and environmental violations, complex fraud and money laundering schemes, and internal investigations. Partner Brown University  University of California Hastings College of Law University of California Hastings College of Law U.S. District Court for the Central District of California U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California California District of Columbia Judicial Clerk, Hon. A. Howard Matz, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Obtained summary judgment on behalf of the movie studio, directors, and producer involved in the creation of a multibillion-dollar movie franchise in a copyright infringement case. Successfully defended a major movie studio against claims relating to the collection of foreign revenue, and obtained an affirmance of the trial court’s ruling on appeal. Defeated an anti-SLAPP motion brought against a major media company, and obtained an affirmance of the trial court’s ruling on appeal. Achieved a multimillion-dollar settlement in a professional liability action brought on behalf of a closely held corporation. Represented publicly-traded healthcare company in numerous class actions. Represented a foreign national in a federal criminal investigation into an allegedly fraudulent scheme to circumvent state and federal environmental regulations. Represented bank directors in civil enforcement actions brought by federal regulatory authorities. Represented a medical device manufacturer in an investigation by state regulatory authorities. Represented a producer of high-quality automotive images in a copyright infringement action against an online tech company arising from the unauthorized use of its photographs. A confidential settlement agreement was reached on the eve of trial.","searchable_name":"Craig H. Bessenger","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":32,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":443887,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6347,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eKeri Borders is a litigator who focuses her practice on defending food and beverage, dietary supplement and consumer packaged goods manufacturers, retailers, and distributors in complex competitor and consumer class action litigation. Clients rely on Keri and her creative problem solving skills because of her deep understanding of their business and her ability to achieve successful results.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKeri regularly practices in state, federal, and appellate courts in cases involving false advertising relating to product labeling and advertising, including nutrition and health claims, contaminants (heavy metals, PFAS, glyphosate, mycotoxins), product attributes, sustainability/environmental/green claims, and alleged violation of the FDCA/NLEA, PPIA, FMIA, Lanham Act, and FTC Green Guides (and state counterparts).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKeri also has significant experience litigating contract, accounting, and intellectual property disputes, and defending unfair business practices, unfair competition, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duty, and business torts. Keri has experience in a broad spectrum of industries, including entertainment, personal care products, consumer electronics, telecommunications, pet food, and real estate.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKeri is ranked in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;and was recognized by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;as one of four MVP\u0026rsquo;s in the United States in Product Liability in 2020.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"keri-borders","email":"kborders@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBustamante v. KIND, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e--- F.4th ----, 2024 WL 1917155 (2d Cir. May 2, 2024),\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;affirming In re: Kind LLC \u0026ldquo;Healthy and All Natural\u0026rdquo; Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e627 F. Supp. 3d 269 (S.D.N.Y. 2022). In a precedential decision following nine years of litigation, the Second Circuit\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eaffirmed summary judgment and striking of plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; and consumer behavior experts in false advertising MDL class action challenging healthy, natural and non-GMO statements on the labels of snack products\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCleveland v. Campbell Soup Co.,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e647 F.Supp.3d 772, (N.D. Cal. 2022)\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Successive motions to dismiss granted in false advertising consumer class action challenging a front-of-pack 0g Total Sugars statement.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eZurilene v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;--- F.Supp.3d ---, 2022 WL 816636 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 17, 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled \u0026ldquo;rich milk chocolate.\u0026rdquo; Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of \u0026ldquo;Vanilla Milk Chocolate Ice Cream Bars\u0026rdquo; without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff was attempting to impose label requirements that were in addition to or different from FDA regulations and, therefore, the theory of liability was preempted.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eYu v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;--- F.Supp.3d ---, 2022 WL 799563 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois consumer protection laws regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled \u0026ldquo;rich milk chocolate.\u0026rdquo; Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of the ice cream bars without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff had no private right of action to enforce FDA regulations, and that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s theory of deception was not plausible because, among other reasons, the coating does contain FDA standard-of-identify chocolate, the label fully discloses the presence of oil in the ingredient list, and the label never suggests that the product does not contain oil.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eKamara v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;--- F.Supp.4th, 2021 WL 5234882 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) Achieved a complete victory for Pepperidge Farm in a putative nationwide consumer class action under New York consumer protection law. The complaint alleged that Pepperidge\u0026rsquo;s Golden Butter Crackers misled consumers into believing that the product does not include oil. In a 2021 published decision dismissing the complaint with prejudice, the court clarified the principle that false advertising claims must be assessed in context. The court also assessed the plausibility of the complaint\u0026rsquo;s theory of deception against recent Second (Mantikas) and Seventh (Bell) Circuit precedents, and found the complaint deficient. See also\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFloyd v. Pepperidge Farm, Incorporated\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, -- F. Supp. 3d--, 2022 WL 203071 (S.D. Ill. Jan, 24, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eChong v. Kind LLC,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e585 F. Supp. 3d 1215, (N.D. Cal. 2022). Motion to dismiss granted in class action challenging front-of-pack protein claim on plant-based product. Plaintiffs alleged that the quantitative statement was deceptive and contrary to FDA regulations because it wasn\u0026rsquo;t corrected for digestibility. Based on our arguments, court reversed a decision it had made on that same issue in a similar lawsuit just a year before. Court also ruled in favor of our client on Buckman preemption, holding that plaintiffs were not able to enforce FDA regulations under the guise of consumer deception claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWong v. The Vons Companies, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2020 WL 5632305 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Sept. 14, 2020) \u0026amp; 2020 WL 6161875 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Oct. 13, 2020). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging label statement on fresh poultry products. Decision affirmed on appeal in unanimous opinion. 2022 WL 1210445 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCheslow v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e472 F.Supp.3d 686 (N.D. Cal. 2020) \u0026amp; 445 F.Supp.3d 8 (N.D. Cal. 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white chips product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePrescott v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2020 WL 3035798 (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white morsels product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMacedonia Distributing, Inc. v. S-L Distribution Co., LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2020 WL 610702 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2020). Certification denied in distributor class action alleging underpayment for distribution businesses.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePorath v. Logitech, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e, 2019 WL 6134936 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2019). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eParker v. Logitech, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2017 WL 4701044 (Cal. Super., Alameda County Oct. 18, 2017). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePelayo v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 989 F. Supp. 2d 973 (C.D. Cal. 2013). Defended Buitoni brand of products in case challenging \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; label statements. Case dismissed with prejudice at the pleading stage. The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to offer an objective or plausible definition of the allegedly-deceptive phrase \u0026ldquo;all natural,\u0026rdquo; stating that \u0026ldquo;the reasonable consumer is aware that Buitoni pastas are not \u0026lsquo;springing fully formed from ravioli trees and tortellini bushes.\u0026rsquo;\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eShin v. Campbell Soup\u003c/em\u003e, No. 17-1082 (C.D. Cal.).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eSecured a victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in the Central District of California dismissed a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that labeling of less sodium and fat-free products was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged statements were accurate and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLucido v. Nestl\u0026eacute; Purina Petcare Company\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 217 F.Supp.3d 1098 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Successfully moved for summary judgment and to strike plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; experts in a consumer class action alleging that Purina failed to disclose that Beneful dog food was harmful. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; case was entirely dependent on their experts\u0026rsquo; opinions, but the opinions were unreliable and inadmissible. Accordingly, plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; case had no evidentiary support and could not proceed.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eKane v. Chobani LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u003c/em\u003e645 Fed. App\u0026rsquo;x. 593 (9th Cir. 2016);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003esee also\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e973 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (N.D. Cal. 2014), 2013 WL 5289253 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2013), and 2013 WL 3776172 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2013). Defense of a putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to Greek yogurt products marketed as containing \u0026ldquo;only natural ingredients\u0026rdquo; and listing \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice\u0026rdquo; as an ingredient. A motion to dismiss was granted. 2013 WL 5289253. The plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; motion for preliminary injunction was denied. 2013 WL 3776172. A motion to disqualify the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; expert was granted. 2013 WL 3991107. After a third amended complaint, a second motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice. 2014 WL 657300. The Ninth Circuit then stayed the case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWysong Corp. v. APN, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 889 F.3d 267 (6th Cir. 2018). Secured a victory for Nestl\u0026eacute; Purina Petcare Company when a federal judge in the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed with prejudice a Lanham Act complaint alleging that using realistic images of meat and vegetables on pet food labels was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged label images, especially when considered in context, were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. Significantly, the court denied further amendments and entered judgment in favor of our client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re KIND LLC \u0026ldquo;Healthy and All Natural\u0026rdquo; Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 209 F. Supp. 3d 689 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for KIND snack bars when a federal judge in the Southern District of New York dismissed claims in an MDL consumer class action challenging KIND\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;healthy\u0026rdquo; labeling and stayed claims challenging \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; labeling pending FDA\u0026rsquo;s consideration of the issue.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCerreta v. Laclede, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e., No. 14-8066 (C.D. Cal.) (removed from L.A. Sup. Ct.). Defending consumer packaged goods company in nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection law regarding \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; labeling of personal care products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGreenberg v. Galderma Laboratories\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, L.P., No. 3:16cv6090 (N.D. Cal.). Defended personal care product company against allegations of false advertising re label statements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMagier v. Tribe Mediterranean Foods, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:15cv5781 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended manufacturer of hummus against claims of false advertising relating to \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; label statements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eRhinerson v. Van\u0026rsquo;s International Foods\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003eNo. 3:13cv9523 (N.D. Cal.). Defended frozen waffle manufacturer against putative nationwide consumer class action challenging the \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; labeling of the products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBackus v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/strong\u003e, 167 F. Supp. 3d 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for Nestl\u0026eacute; USA and its iconic Coffee-mate brand when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a consumer class action complaint. Plaintiffs alleged that Nestl\u0026eacute;\u0026rsquo;s mere use of partially hydrogenated oil in Coffee-mate was unlawful, and that labeling statements touting the product as having \u0026ldquo;0g Trans Fat\u0026rdquo; was misleading. The court ruled that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s \u0026lsquo;use\u0026rsquo; theory was an obstacle to federal law and therefore preempted, and that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s false advertising theory, which attempted to impose labeling requirements not identical to federal law was expressly preempted.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWorkman v. Plum PBC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 141 F. Supp. 3d 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2015). Secured a victory for Campbell Soup and its subsidiary Plum Organics when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that food labeling was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; theory of deception was not plausible because the labels were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eRoss v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:16-cv-09563 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended Lean Cuisine products against false advertising claims relating to \u0026ldquo;no preservatives\u0026rdquo; label statement and the presence of citric acid in products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAstiana v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 11-2910 (N.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to H\u0026auml;agen-Dazs and Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s ice cream products labeled \u0026ldquo;All Natural.\u0026rdquo; This case was consolidated with the copy-cat case Rutledge-Muhs v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream. The action was dismissed with prejudice.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eStoltz v. Chobani, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:14cv3827 (E.D.N.Y.). Defended nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising of Greek Yogurt products, marketed as \u0026ldquo;Greek Yogurt,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;0%,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice,\u0026rdquo; and natural and healthy.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eChavez v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 09-9192 (C.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action against Nestl\u0026eacute; USA alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to juice products marketed as supporting brain development, immunity and digestive health. Case dismissed following three successive, successful motions to dismiss (2011 WL 10565797 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011), 2011 WL 2150128 (C.D. Cal. May 19, 2011)). Judgment in defendant\u0026rsquo;s favor affirmed in part and reversed in part. 511 Fed. App\u0026rsquo;x. 606 (9th Cir. 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIbarrola v. KIND LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 83 F. Supp. 3d 751 (N.D. Ill. 2014). Secured a complete victory for client KIND LLC in the Northern District of Illinois when Judge Sara Ellis dismissed a putative nationwide consumer class action premised on allegations that KIND deceived consumers by including a \u0026ldquo;No Refined Sugars\u0026rdquo; statement on the label of snack foods. Judge Ellis granted KIND\u0026rsquo;s motion to dismiss an amended complaint with prejudice, holding that plaintiff failed to allege a plausible theory of deception.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBoyle v. KIND LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:13cv8365 (S.D.N.Y). Defended nationwide consumer class action challenging the labeling of snack bar products as insinuating that consuming the products will not lead to weight gain and that the product is better-for-you product. Also defended copy-cat, follow-on action\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBailey v. KIND LLC\u003c/em\u003e, No. 8:16cv168(C.D. Cal.).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTrazo v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 5:12cv2272 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Coffee-mate powder products marketed as \u0026ldquo;0g trans fat.\u0026rdquo; This case is notable for the scope of its predecessor case at filing\u0026mdash;challenging an open-ended number of the products of a major food manufacturer. The broadside attack featured multiple misbranding allegations on diverse labeling statements. Of special significance, we dealt a massive blow when its separate and innovative motion to strike the plaintiffs' class allegations\u0026mdash;at the pleading stage\u0026mdash;was granted. 201 WL 4083218 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2013). The challenged products were subsequently reduced from \u0026ldquo;open-ended\u0026rdquo; to four and the misbranding theories have been reduced from nine to four.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBelli II v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 5:14cv283 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Eskimo Pie products marketed as \u0026ldquo;No Sugar Added.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Gerber Probiotic Sales Practices Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 12-835 (D. N.J.). Defended Gerber in ten-case consolidated nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under consumer protection and warranty laws of multiple states with respect to baby formula and cereal products labeled as containing immune-supporting probiotics, digestion-supporting prebiotics, and brain and eye development-supporting DHA. Motions to consolidate cases granted.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBurns v. Gerber Prods. Co\u003c/em\u003e., 922 F.Supp.2d 1168 (E.D. Wash. 2013);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHawkins v. Gerber\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Prods. Co., 924 F.Supp.2d 1208 (S.D. Cal. 2013).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eReilly v. Amy\u0026rsquo;s Kitchen\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (S.D. Fla. 2014);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003esee also\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2014 WL 905441 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2014) Defended against putative Florida consumer class action alleging false advertising under Florida consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice.\u0026rdquo; A federal judge first denied plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s request to reinstate claims over 57 products that the named plaintiff never purchased. The court then dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds because the amount at issue for the three products the named plaintiff did purchase fell below the Class Action Fairness Act amount in controversy requirement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFigy v. Amy\u0026rsquo;s Kitchen, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e., 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (N.D. Cal. 2014). Defended against putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice.\u0026rdquo; A federal judge dismissed action without leave to amend based on primary jurisdiction of FDA (later converted to stay).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSimpson v. California Pizza Kitchen\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 989 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (S.D. Cal. 2013), 2013, 2013 WL 5718479 (S.D. Cal Oct. 1, 2013). Defended a putative nationwide consumer class action against several frozen pizza brands owned by Nestl\u0026eacute; USA and California Pizza Kitchen alleging violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and statutory nuisance law. This was a bellwether case. Using the class action vehicle, plaintiffs sought to impose an unprecedented judicial ban on artificial trans fats in frozen pizza products. Any success could have \u0026ldquo;opened the floodgates\u0026rdquo; to numerous other cases seeking to ban individual ingredients. A motion to dismiss was granted as to the entire complaint, with prejudice and without leave to amend.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBrower v. Campbell Soup Company\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e243 F. Supp. 3d 1124, 2017 WL 1063470 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2017). Obtained a dismissal with prejudice for Campbell Soup in a consumer class challenging the labels of Chunky Healthy Request soup products. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; state-law false advertising claims are preempted by the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act and the Federal Meat Inspection Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBell v. Campbell Soup Co.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e65 F. Supp. 3d 1328 (N.D. Fla. 2014). Secured victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in Florida dismissed with prejudice an amended consumer class action complaint in an action that initially had challenged the labeling of more than 50 products from multiple product lines under Campbell\u0026rsquo;s iconic V8 brand. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; amended claims (following an initial motion to dismiss) were expressly preempted as attempting to impose state-law labeling requirements that were not identical to federal labeling law and that Campbell\u0026rsquo;s labels complied with the federal requirements \u0026ldquo;to the letter.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":2,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Borders","nick_name":"Keri","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Judge Robert J. Timlin, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California","years_held":"1998 - 1998"}],"first_name":"Keri","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":32,"law_schools":[{"id":2158,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1997-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Next Generation Partner","detail":"Legal 500, 2023"},{"title":"Ranked Band 4 for Food \u0026 Beverages: Regulatory \u0026 Litigation","detail":"Chambers USA (Nationwide), 2022, 2023"},{"title":"Named Law360 MVP (Product Liability)","detail":"2020"},{"title":"Named Leader of Influence: Litigators \u0026 Trial Attorneys","detail":"Los Angeles Business Journal – 2021"},{"title":"Named Women of Influence","detail":"Attorneys by Los Angeles Business Journal - 2021"},{"title":"2021 Women Worth Watching in Leadership Award Winner","detail":"Diversity Law Journal"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/keri-borders-36814112/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eKeri Borders is a litigator who focuses her practice on defending food and beverage, dietary supplement and consumer packaged goods manufacturers, retailers, and distributors in complex competitor and consumer class action litigation. Clients rely on Keri and her creative problem solving skills because of her deep understanding of their business and her ability to achieve successful results.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKeri regularly practices in state, federal, and appellate courts in cases involving false advertising relating to product labeling and advertising, including nutrition and health claims, contaminants (heavy metals, PFAS, glyphosate, mycotoxins), product attributes, sustainability/environmental/green claims, and alleged violation of the FDCA/NLEA, PPIA, FMIA, Lanham Act, and FTC Green Guides (and state counterparts).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKeri also has significant experience litigating contract, accounting, and intellectual property disputes, and defending unfair business practices, unfair competition, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duty, and business torts. Keri has experience in a broad spectrum of industries, including entertainment, personal care products, consumer electronics, telecommunications, pet food, and real estate.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKeri is ranked in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;and was recognized by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;as one of four MVP\u0026rsquo;s in the United States in Product Liability in 2020.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBustamante v. KIND, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e--- F.4th ----, 2024 WL 1917155 (2d Cir. May 2, 2024),\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;affirming In re: Kind LLC \u0026ldquo;Healthy and All Natural\u0026rdquo; Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e627 F. Supp. 3d 269 (S.D.N.Y. 2022). In a precedential decision following nine years of litigation, the Second Circuit\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eaffirmed summary judgment and striking of plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; and consumer behavior experts in false advertising MDL class action challenging healthy, natural and non-GMO statements on the labels of snack products\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCleveland v. Campbell Soup Co.,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e647 F.Supp.3d 772, (N.D. Cal. 2022)\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Successive motions to dismiss granted in false advertising consumer class action challenging a front-of-pack 0g Total Sugars statement.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eZurilene v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;--- F.Supp.3d ---, 2022 WL 816636 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 17, 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled \u0026ldquo;rich milk chocolate.\u0026rdquo; Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of \u0026ldquo;Vanilla Milk Chocolate Ice Cream Bars\u0026rdquo; without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff was attempting to impose label requirements that were in addition to or different from FDA regulations and, therefore, the theory of liability was preempted.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eYu v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;--- F.Supp.3d ---, 2022 WL 799563 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois consumer protection laws regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled \u0026ldquo;rich milk chocolate.\u0026rdquo; Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of the ice cream bars without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff had no private right of action to enforce FDA regulations, and that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s theory of deception was not plausible because, among other reasons, the coating does contain FDA standard-of-identify chocolate, the label fully discloses the presence of oil in the ingredient list, and the label never suggests that the product does not contain oil.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eKamara v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;--- F.Supp.4th, 2021 WL 5234882 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) Achieved a complete victory for Pepperidge Farm in a putative nationwide consumer class action under New York consumer protection law. The complaint alleged that Pepperidge\u0026rsquo;s Golden Butter Crackers misled consumers into believing that the product does not include oil. In a 2021 published decision dismissing the complaint with prejudice, the court clarified the principle that false advertising claims must be assessed in context. The court also assessed the plausibility of the complaint\u0026rsquo;s theory of deception against recent Second (Mantikas) and Seventh (Bell) Circuit precedents, and found the complaint deficient. See also\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFloyd v. Pepperidge Farm, Incorporated\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, -- F. Supp. 3d--, 2022 WL 203071 (S.D. Ill. Jan, 24, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eChong v. Kind LLC,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e585 F. Supp. 3d 1215, (N.D. Cal. 2022). Motion to dismiss granted in class action challenging front-of-pack protein claim on plant-based product. Plaintiffs alleged that the quantitative statement was deceptive and contrary to FDA regulations because it wasn\u0026rsquo;t corrected for digestibility. Based on our arguments, court reversed a decision it had made on that same issue in a similar lawsuit just a year before. Court also ruled in favor of our client on Buckman preemption, holding that plaintiffs were not able to enforce FDA regulations under the guise of consumer deception claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWong v. The Vons Companies, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2020 WL 5632305 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Sept. 14, 2020) \u0026amp; 2020 WL 6161875 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Oct. 13, 2020). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging label statement on fresh poultry products. Decision affirmed on appeal in unanimous opinion. 2022 WL 1210445 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCheslow v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e472 F.Supp.3d 686 (N.D. Cal. 2020) \u0026amp; 445 F.Supp.3d 8 (N.D. Cal. 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white chips product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePrescott v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2020 WL 3035798 (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white morsels product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMacedonia Distributing, Inc. v. S-L Distribution Co., LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2020 WL 610702 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2020). Certification denied in distributor class action alleging underpayment for distribution businesses.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePorath v. Logitech, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e, 2019 WL 6134936 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2019). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eParker v. Logitech, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2017 WL 4701044 (Cal. Super., Alameda County Oct. 18, 2017). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePelayo v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 989 F. Supp. 2d 973 (C.D. Cal. 2013). Defended Buitoni brand of products in case challenging \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; label statements. Case dismissed with prejudice at the pleading stage. The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to offer an objective or plausible definition of the allegedly-deceptive phrase \u0026ldquo;all natural,\u0026rdquo; stating that \u0026ldquo;the reasonable consumer is aware that Buitoni pastas are not \u0026lsquo;springing fully formed from ravioli trees and tortellini bushes.\u0026rsquo;\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eShin v. Campbell Soup\u003c/em\u003e, No. 17-1082 (C.D. Cal.).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eSecured a victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in the Central District of California dismissed a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that labeling of less sodium and fat-free products was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged statements were accurate and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLucido v. Nestl\u0026eacute; Purina Petcare Company\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 217 F.Supp.3d 1098 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Successfully moved for summary judgment and to strike plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; experts in a consumer class action alleging that Purina failed to disclose that Beneful dog food was harmful. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; case was entirely dependent on their experts\u0026rsquo; opinions, but the opinions were unreliable and inadmissible. Accordingly, plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; case had no evidentiary support and could not proceed.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eKane v. Chobani LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u003c/em\u003e645 Fed. App\u0026rsquo;x. 593 (9th Cir. 2016);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003esee also\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e973 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (N.D. Cal. 2014), 2013 WL 5289253 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2013), and 2013 WL 3776172 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2013). Defense of a putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to Greek yogurt products marketed as containing \u0026ldquo;only natural ingredients\u0026rdquo; and listing \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice\u0026rdquo; as an ingredient. A motion to dismiss was granted. 2013 WL 5289253. The plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; motion for preliminary injunction was denied. 2013 WL 3776172. A motion to disqualify the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; expert was granted. 2013 WL 3991107. After a third amended complaint, a second motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice. 2014 WL 657300. The Ninth Circuit then stayed the case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWysong Corp. v. APN, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 889 F.3d 267 (6th Cir. 2018). Secured a victory for Nestl\u0026eacute; Purina Petcare Company when a federal judge in the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed with prejudice a Lanham Act complaint alleging that using realistic images of meat and vegetables on pet food labels was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged label images, especially when considered in context, were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. Significantly, the court denied further amendments and entered judgment in favor of our client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re KIND LLC \u0026ldquo;Healthy and All Natural\u0026rdquo; Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 209 F. Supp. 3d 689 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for KIND snack bars when a federal judge in the Southern District of New York dismissed claims in an MDL consumer class action challenging KIND\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;healthy\u0026rdquo; labeling and stayed claims challenging \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; labeling pending FDA\u0026rsquo;s consideration of the issue.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCerreta v. Laclede, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e., No. 14-8066 (C.D. Cal.) (removed from L.A. Sup. Ct.). Defending consumer packaged goods company in nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection law regarding \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; labeling of personal care products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGreenberg v. Galderma Laboratories\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, L.P., No. 3:16cv6090 (N.D. Cal.). Defended personal care product company against allegations of false advertising re label statements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMagier v. Tribe Mediterranean Foods, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:15cv5781 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended manufacturer of hummus against claims of false advertising relating to \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; label statements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eRhinerson v. Van\u0026rsquo;s International Foods\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003eNo. 3:13cv9523 (N.D. Cal.). Defended frozen waffle manufacturer against putative nationwide consumer class action challenging the \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; labeling of the products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBackus v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/strong\u003e, 167 F. Supp. 3d 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for Nestl\u0026eacute; USA and its iconic Coffee-mate brand when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a consumer class action complaint. Plaintiffs alleged that Nestl\u0026eacute;\u0026rsquo;s mere use of partially hydrogenated oil in Coffee-mate was unlawful, and that labeling statements touting the product as having \u0026ldquo;0g Trans Fat\u0026rdquo; was misleading. The court ruled that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s \u0026lsquo;use\u0026rsquo; theory was an obstacle to federal law and therefore preempted, and that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s false advertising theory, which attempted to impose labeling requirements not identical to federal law was expressly preempted.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWorkman v. Plum PBC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 141 F. Supp. 3d 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2015). Secured a victory for Campbell Soup and its subsidiary Plum Organics when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that food labeling was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; theory of deception was not plausible because the labels were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eRoss v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:16-cv-09563 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended Lean Cuisine products against false advertising claims relating to \u0026ldquo;no preservatives\u0026rdquo; label statement and the presence of citric acid in products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAstiana v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 11-2910 (N.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to H\u0026auml;agen-Dazs and Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s ice cream products labeled \u0026ldquo;All Natural.\u0026rdquo; This case was consolidated with the copy-cat case Rutledge-Muhs v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream. The action was dismissed with prejudice.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eStoltz v. Chobani, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:14cv3827 (E.D.N.Y.). Defended nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising of Greek Yogurt products, marketed as \u0026ldquo;Greek Yogurt,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;0%,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice,\u0026rdquo; and natural and healthy.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eChavez v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 09-9192 (C.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action against Nestl\u0026eacute; USA alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to juice products marketed as supporting brain development, immunity and digestive health. Case dismissed following three successive, successful motions to dismiss (2011 WL 10565797 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011), 2011 WL 2150128 (C.D. Cal. May 19, 2011)). Judgment in defendant\u0026rsquo;s favor affirmed in part and reversed in part. 511 Fed. App\u0026rsquo;x. 606 (9th Cir. 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIbarrola v. KIND LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 83 F. Supp. 3d 751 (N.D. Ill. 2014). Secured a complete victory for client KIND LLC in the Northern District of Illinois when Judge Sara Ellis dismissed a putative nationwide consumer class action premised on allegations that KIND deceived consumers by including a \u0026ldquo;No Refined Sugars\u0026rdquo; statement on the label of snack foods. Judge Ellis granted KIND\u0026rsquo;s motion to dismiss an amended complaint with prejudice, holding that plaintiff failed to allege a plausible theory of deception.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBoyle v. KIND LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:13cv8365 (S.D.N.Y). Defended nationwide consumer class action challenging the labeling of snack bar products as insinuating that consuming the products will not lead to weight gain and that the product is better-for-you product. Also defended copy-cat, follow-on action\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBailey v. KIND LLC\u003c/em\u003e, No. 8:16cv168(C.D. Cal.).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTrazo v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 5:12cv2272 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Coffee-mate powder products marketed as \u0026ldquo;0g trans fat.\u0026rdquo; This case is notable for the scope of its predecessor case at filing\u0026mdash;challenging an open-ended number of the products of a major food manufacturer. The broadside attack featured multiple misbranding allegations on diverse labeling statements. Of special significance, we dealt a massive blow when its separate and innovative motion to strike the plaintiffs' class allegations\u0026mdash;at the pleading stage\u0026mdash;was granted. 201 WL 4083218 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2013). The challenged products were subsequently reduced from \u0026ldquo;open-ended\u0026rdquo; to four and the misbranding theories have been reduced from nine to four.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBelli II v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 5:14cv283 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Eskimo Pie products marketed as \u0026ldquo;No Sugar Added.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Gerber Probiotic Sales Practices Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 12-835 (D. N.J.). Defended Gerber in ten-case consolidated nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under consumer protection and warranty laws of multiple states with respect to baby formula and cereal products labeled as containing immune-supporting probiotics, digestion-supporting prebiotics, and brain and eye development-supporting DHA. Motions to consolidate cases granted.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBurns v. Gerber Prods. Co\u003c/em\u003e., 922 F.Supp.2d 1168 (E.D. Wash. 2013);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHawkins v. Gerber\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Prods. Co., 924 F.Supp.2d 1208 (S.D. Cal. 2013).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eReilly v. Amy\u0026rsquo;s Kitchen\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (S.D. Fla. 2014);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003esee also\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2014 WL 905441 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2014) Defended against putative Florida consumer class action alleging false advertising under Florida consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice.\u0026rdquo; A federal judge first denied plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s request to reinstate claims over 57 products that the named plaintiff never purchased. The court then dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds because the amount at issue for the three products the named plaintiff did purchase fell below the Class Action Fairness Act amount in controversy requirement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFigy v. Amy\u0026rsquo;s Kitchen, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e., 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (N.D. Cal. 2014). Defended against putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice.\u0026rdquo; A federal judge dismissed action without leave to amend based on primary jurisdiction of FDA (later converted to stay).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSimpson v. California Pizza Kitchen\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 989 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (S.D. Cal. 2013), 2013, 2013 WL 5718479 (S.D. Cal Oct. 1, 2013). Defended a putative nationwide consumer class action against several frozen pizza brands owned by Nestl\u0026eacute; USA and California Pizza Kitchen alleging violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and statutory nuisance law. This was a bellwether case. Using the class action vehicle, plaintiffs sought to impose an unprecedented judicial ban on artificial trans fats in frozen pizza products. Any success could have \u0026ldquo;opened the floodgates\u0026rdquo; to numerous other cases seeking to ban individual ingredients. A motion to dismiss was granted as to the entire complaint, with prejudice and without leave to amend.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBrower v. Campbell Soup Company\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e243 F. Supp. 3d 1124, 2017 WL 1063470 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2017). Obtained a dismissal with prejudice for Campbell Soup in a consumer class challenging the labels of Chunky Healthy Request soup products. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; state-law false advertising claims are preempted by the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act and the Federal Meat Inspection Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBell v. Campbell Soup Co.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e65 F. Supp. 3d 1328 (N.D. Fla. 2014). Secured victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in Florida dismissed with prejudice an amended consumer class action complaint in an action that initially had challenged the labeling of more than 50 products from multiple product lines under Campbell\u0026rsquo;s iconic V8 brand. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; amended claims (following an initial motion to dismiss) were expressly preempted as attempting to impose state-law labeling requirements that were not identical to federal labeling law and that Campbell\u0026rsquo;s labels complied with the federal requirements \u0026ldquo;to the letter.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Next Generation Partner","detail":"Legal 500, 2023"},{"title":"Ranked Band 4 for Food \u0026 Beverages: Regulatory \u0026 Litigation","detail":"Chambers USA (Nationwide), 2022, 2023"},{"title":"Named Law360 MVP (Product Liability)","detail":"2020"},{"title":"Named Leader of Influence: Litigators \u0026 Trial Attorneys","detail":"Los Angeles Business Journal – 2021"},{"title":"Named Women of Influence","detail":"Attorneys by Los Angeles Business Journal - 2021"},{"title":"2021 Women Worth Watching in Leadership Award Winner","detail":"Diversity Law Journal"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":9734}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-12-05T05:00:07.000Z","updated_at":"2025-12-05T05:00:07.000Z","searchable_text":"Borders{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Next Generation Partner\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked Band 4 for Food \u0026amp; Beverages: Regulatory \u0026amp; Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA (Nationwide), 2022, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Law360 MVP (Product Liability)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Leader of Influence: Litigators \u0026amp; Trial Attorneys\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Los Angeles Business Journal – 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Women of Influence\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Attorneys by Los Angeles Business Journal - 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"2021 Women Worth Watching in Leadership Award Winner\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Diversity Law Journal\"}{{ FIELD }}Bustamante v. KIND, LLC, --- F.4th ----, 2024 WL 1917155 (2d Cir. May 2, 2024), affirming In re: Kind LLC “Healthy and All Natural” Litigation, 627 F. Supp. 3d 269 (S.D.N.Y. 2022). In a precedential decision following nine years of litigation, the Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment and striking of plaintiffs’ “natural” and consumer behavior experts in false advertising MDL class action challenging healthy, natural and non-GMO statements on the labels of snack products.{{ FIELD }}Cleveland v. Campbell Soup Co., 647 F.Supp.3d 772, (N.D. Cal. 2022) Successive motions to dismiss granted in false advertising consumer class action challenging a front-of-pack 0g Total Sugars statement.{{ FIELD }}Zurilene v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc., --- F.Supp.3d ---, 2022 WL 816636 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 17, 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled “rich milk chocolate.” Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of “Vanilla Milk Chocolate Ice Cream Bars” without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff was attempting to impose label requirements that were in addition to or different from FDA regulations and, therefore, the theory of liability was preempted.{{ FIELD }}Yu v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc. --- F.Supp.3d ---, 2022 WL 799563 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois consumer protection laws regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled “rich milk chocolate.” Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of the ice cream bars without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff had no private right of action to enforce FDA regulations, and that plaintiff’s theory of deception was not plausible because, among other reasons, the coating does contain FDA standard-of-identify chocolate, the label fully discloses the presence of oil in the ingredient list, and the label never suggests that the product does not contain oil.{{ FIELD }}Kamara v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc., --- F.Supp.4th, 2021 WL 5234882 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) Achieved a complete victory for Pepperidge Farm in a putative nationwide consumer class action under New York consumer protection law. The complaint alleged that Pepperidge’s Golden Butter Crackers misled consumers into believing that the product does not include oil. In a 2021 published decision dismissing the complaint with prejudice, the court clarified the principle that false advertising claims must be assessed in context. The court also assessed the plausibility of the complaint’s theory of deception against recent Second (Mantikas) and Seventh (Bell) Circuit precedents, and found the complaint deficient. See also Floyd v. Pepperidge Farm, Incorporated, -- F. Supp. 3d--, 2022 WL 203071 (S.D. Ill. Jan, 24, 2022).{{ FIELD }}Chong v. Kind LLC, 585 F. Supp. 3d 1215, (N.D. Cal. 2022). Motion to dismiss granted in class action challenging front-of-pack protein claim on plant-based product. Plaintiffs alleged that the quantitative statement was deceptive and contrary to FDA regulations because it wasn’t corrected for digestibility. Based on our arguments, court reversed a decision it had made on that same issue in a similar lawsuit just a year before. Court also ruled in favor of our client on Buckman preemption, holding that plaintiffs were not able to enforce FDA regulations under the guise of consumer deception claims.{{ FIELD }}Wong v. The Vons Companies, Inc., 2020 WL 5632305 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Sept. 14, 2020) \u0026amp; 2020 WL 6161875 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Oct. 13, 2020). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging label statement on fresh poultry products. Decision affirmed on appeal in unanimous opinion. 2022 WL 1210445 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2022).{{ FIELD }}Cheslow v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co., 472 F.Supp.3d 686 (N.D. Cal. 2020) \u0026amp; 445 F.Supp.3d 8 (N.D. Cal. 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white chips product.{{ FIELD }}Prescott v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 2020 WL 3035798 (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white morsels product.{{ FIELD }}Macedonia Distributing, Inc. v. S-L Distribution Co., LLC, 2020 WL 610702 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2020). Certification denied in distributor class action alleging underpayment for distribution businesses.{{ FIELD }}Porath v. Logitech, Inc., 2019 WL 6134936 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2019). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product.{{ FIELD }}Parker v. Logitech, Inc., 2017 WL 4701044 (Cal. Super., Alameda County Oct. 18, 2017). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product.{{ FIELD }}Pelayo v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 989 F. Supp. 2d 973 (C.D. Cal. 2013). Defended Buitoni brand of products in case challenging “natural” label statements. Case dismissed with prejudice at the pleading stage. The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to offer an objective or plausible definition of the allegedly-deceptive phrase “all natural,” stating that “the reasonable consumer is aware that Buitoni pastas are not ‘springing fully formed from ravioli trees and tortellini bushes.’”{{ FIELD }}Shin v. Campbell Soup, No. 17-1082 (C.D. Cal.). Secured a victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in the Central District of California dismissed a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that labeling of less sodium and fat-free products was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged statements were accurate and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.{{ FIELD }}Lucido v. Nestlé Purina Petcare Company, 217 F.Supp.3d 1098 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Successfully moved for summary judgment and to strike plaintiffs’ experts in a consumer class action alleging that Purina failed to disclose that Beneful dog food was harmful. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ case was entirely dependent on their experts’ opinions, but the opinions were unreliable and inadmissible. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ case had no evidentiary support and could not proceed.{{ FIELD }}Kane v. Chobani LLC,645 Fed. App’x. 593 (9th Cir. 2016); see also 973 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (N.D. Cal. 2014), 2013 WL 5289253 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2013), and 2013 WL 3776172 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2013). Defense of a putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to Greek yogurt products marketed as containing “only natural ingredients” and listing “evaporated cane juice” as an ingredient. A motion to dismiss was granted. 2013 WL 5289253. The plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction was denied. 2013 WL 3776172. A motion to disqualify the plaintiffs’ expert was granted. 2013 WL 3991107. After a third amended complaint, a second motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice. 2014 WL 657300. The Ninth Circuit then stayed the case.{{ FIELD }}Wysong Corp. v. APN, Inc., 889 F.3d 267 (6th Cir. 2018). Secured a victory for Nestlé Purina Petcare Company when a federal judge in the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed with prejudice a Lanham Act complaint alleging that using realistic images of meat and vegetables on pet food labels was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiff’s theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged label images, especially when considered in context, were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. Significantly, the court denied further amendments and entered judgment in favor of our client.{{ FIELD }}In re KIND LLC “Healthy and All Natural” Litigation, 209 F. Supp. 3d 689 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for KIND snack bars when a federal judge in the Southern District of New York dismissed claims in an MDL consumer class action challenging KIND’s “healthy” labeling and stayed claims challenging “natural” labeling pending FDA’s consideration of the issue.{{ FIELD }}Cerreta v. Laclede, Inc., No. 14-8066 (C.D. Cal.) (removed from L.A. Sup. Ct.). Defending consumer packaged goods company in nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection law regarding “natural” labeling of personal care products.{{ FIELD }}Greenberg v. Galderma Laboratories, L.P., No. 3:16cv6090 (N.D. Cal.). Defended personal care product company against allegations of false advertising re label statements.{{ FIELD }}Magier v. Tribe Mediterranean Foods, Inc., No. 1:15cv5781 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended manufacturer of hummus against claims of false advertising relating to “natural” label statements.{{ FIELD }}Rhinerson v. Van’s International Foods ,No. 3:13cv9523 (N.D. Cal.). Defended frozen waffle manufacturer against putative nationwide consumer class action challenging the “natural” labeling of the products.{{ FIELD }}Backus v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 167 F. Supp. 3d 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for Nestlé USA and its iconic Coffee-mate brand when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a consumer class action complaint. Plaintiffs alleged that Nestlé’s mere use of partially hydrogenated oil in Coffee-mate was unlawful, and that labeling statements touting the product as having “0g Trans Fat” was misleading. The court ruled that plaintiff’s ‘use’ theory was an obstacle to federal law and therefore preempted, and that plaintiff’s false advertising theory, which attempted to impose labeling requirements not identical to federal law was expressly preempted.{{ FIELD }}Workman v. Plum PBC, 141 F. Supp. 3d 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2015). Secured a victory for Campbell Soup and its subsidiary Plum Organics when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that food labeling was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ theory of deception was not plausible because the labels were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.{{ FIELD }}Ross v. Nestlé USA, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-09563 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended Lean Cuisine products against false advertising claims relating to “no preservatives” label statement and the presence of citric acid in products.{{ FIELD }}Astiana v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, No. 11-2910 (N.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to Häagen-Dazs and Dreyer’s ice cream products labeled “All Natural.” This case was consolidated with the copy-cat case Rutledge-Muhs v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream. The action was dismissed with prejudice.{{ FIELD }}Stoltz v. Chobani, LLC, No. 1:14cv3827 (E.D.N.Y.). Defended nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising of Greek Yogurt products, marketed as “Greek Yogurt,” “0%,” “evaporated cane juice,” and natural and healthy.{{ FIELD }}Chavez v. Nestlé USA, No. 09-9192 (C.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action against Nestlé USA alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to juice products marketed as supporting brain development, immunity and digestive health. Case dismissed following three successive, successful motions to dismiss (2011 WL 10565797 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011), 2011 WL 2150128 (C.D. Cal. May 19, 2011)). Judgment in defendant’s favor affirmed in part and reversed in part. 511 Fed. App’x. 606 (9th Cir. 2013).{{ FIELD }}Ibarrola v. KIND LLC, 83 F. Supp. 3d 751 (N.D. Ill. 2014). Secured a complete victory for client KIND LLC in the Northern District of Illinois when Judge Sara Ellis dismissed a putative nationwide consumer class action premised on allegations that KIND deceived consumers by including a “No Refined Sugars” statement on the label of snack foods. Judge Ellis granted KIND’s motion to dismiss an amended complaint with prejudice, holding that plaintiff failed to allege a plausible theory of deception.{{ FIELD }}Boyle v. KIND LLC, No. 1:13cv8365 (S.D.N.Y). Defended nationwide consumer class action challenging the labeling of snack bar products as insinuating that consuming the products will not lead to weight gain and that the product is better-for-you product. Also defended copy-cat, follow-on action Bailey v. KIND LLC, No. 8:16cv168(C.D. Cal.).{{ FIELD }}Trazo v. Nestlé USA, Inc., No. 5:12cv2272 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Coffee-mate powder products marketed as “0g trans fat.” This case is notable for the scope of its predecessor case at filing—challenging an open-ended number of the products of a major food manufacturer. The broadside attack featured multiple misbranding allegations on diverse labeling statements. Of special significance, we dealt a massive blow when its separate and innovative motion to strike the plaintiffs' class allegations—at the pleading stage—was granted. 201 WL 4083218 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2013). The challenged products were subsequently reduced from “open-ended” to four and the misbranding theories have been reduced from nine to four.{{ FIELD }}Belli II v. Nestlé USA, Inc., No. 5:14cv283 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Eskimo Pie products marketed as “No Sugar Added.”{{ FIELD }}In re Gerber Probiotic Sales Practices Litigation, No. 12-835 (D. N.J.). Defended Gerber in ten-case consolidated nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under consumer protection and warranty laws of multiple states with respect to baby formula and cereal products labeled as containing immune-supporting probiotics, digestion-supporting prebiotics, and brain and eye development-supporting DHA. Motions to consolidate cases granted. Burns v. Gerber Prods. Co., 922 F.Supp.2d 1168 (E.D. Wash. 2013); Hawkins v. Gerber Prods. Co., 924 F.Supp.2d 1208 (S.D. Cal. 2013).{{ FIELD }}Reilly v. Amy’s Kitchen , 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (S.D. Fla. 2014); see also 2014 WL 905441 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2014) Defended against putative Florida consumer class action alleging false advertising under Florida consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient “evaporated cane juice.” A federal judge first denied plaintiff’s request to reinstate claims over 57 products that the named plaintiff never purchased. The court then dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds because the amount at issue for the three products the named plaintiff did purchase fell below the Class Action Fairness Act amount in controversy requirement.{{ FIELD }}Figy v. Amy’s Kitchen, Inc., 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (N.D. Cal. 2014). Defended against putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient “evaporated cane juice.” A federal judge dismissed action without leave to amend based on primary jurisdiction of FDA (later converted to stay).{{ FIELD }}Simpson v. California Pizza Kitchen, 989 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (S.D. Cal. 2013), 2013, 2013 WL 5718479 (S.D. Cal Oct. 1, 2013). Defended a putative nationwide consumer class action against several frozen pizza brands owned by Nestlé USA and California Pizza Kitchen alleging violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and statutory nuisance law. This was a bellwether case. Using the class action vehicle, plaintiffs sought to impose an unprecedented judicial ban on artificial trans fats in frozen pizza products. Any success could have “opened the floodgates” to numerous other cases seeking to ban individual ingredients. A motion to dismiss was granted as to the entire complaint, with prejudice and without leave to amend.{{ FIELD }}Brower v. Campbell Soup Company, 243 F. Supp. 3d 1124, 2017 WL 1063470 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2017). Obtained a dismissal with prejudice for Campbell Soup in a consumer class challenging the labels of Chunky Healthy Request soup products. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ state-law false advertising claims are preempted by the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act and the Federal Meat Inspection Act.{{ FIELD }}Bell v. Campbell Soup Co., 65 F. Supp. 3d 1328 (N.D. Fla. 2014). Secured victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in Florida dismissed with prejudice an amended consumer class action complaint in an action that initially had challenged the labeling of more than 50 products from multiple product lines under Campbell’s iconic V8 brand. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ amended claims (following an initial motion to dismiss) were expressly preempted as attempting to impose state-law labeling requirements that were not identical to federal labeling law and that Campbell’s labels complied with the federal requirements “to the letter.”{{ FIELD }}Keri Borders is a litigator who focuses her practice on defending food and beverage, dietary supplement and consumer packaged goods manufacturers, retailers, and distributors in complex competitor and consumer class action litigation. Clients rely on Keri and her creative problem solving skills because of her deep understanding of their business and her ability to achieve successful results.\nKeri regularly practices in state, federal, and appellate courts in cases involving false advertising relating to product labeling and advertising, including nutrition and health claims, contaminants (heavy metals, PFAS, glyphosate, mycotoxins), product attributes, sustainability/environmental/green claims, and alleged violation of the FDCA/NLEA, PPIA, FMIA, Lanham Act, and FTC Green Guides (and state counterparts).\nKeri also has significant experience litigating contract, accounting, and intellectual property disputes, and defending unfair business practices, unfair competition, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duty, and business torts. Keri has experience in a broad spectrum of industries, including entertainment, personal care products, consumer electronics, telecommunications, pet food, and real estate.\nKeri is ranked in Chambers USA, Legal 500, and was recognized by Law360 as one of four MVP’s in the United States in Product Liability in 2020. Partner Next Generation Partner Legal 500, 2023 Ranked Band 4 for Food \u0026amp; Beverages: Regulatory \u0026amp; Litigation Chambers USA (Nationwide), 2022, 2023 Named Law360 MVP (Product Liability) 2020 Named Leader of Influence: Litigators \u0026amp; Trial Attorneys Los Angeles Business Journal – 2021 Named Women of Influence Attorneys by Los Angeles Business Journal - 2021 2021 Women Worth Watching in Leadership Award Winner Diversity Law Journal University of California  University of California Hastings College of Law University of California Hastings College of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri U.S. District Court for the Central District of California U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California California Member, American Bar Association Board of Governors, Association of Business Trial Lawyers, Los Angeles Chapter Member, Food and Drug Law Institute Member, Consumer Brands Association Law Clerk, Judge Robert J. Timlin, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Bustamante v. KIND, LLC, --- F.4th ----, 2024 WL 1917155 (2d Cir. May 2, 2024), affirming In re: Kind LLC “Healthy and All Natural” Litigation, 627 F. Supp. 3d 269 (S.D.N.Y. 2022). In a precedential decision following nine years of litigation, the Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment and striking of plaintiffs’ “natural” and consumer behavior experts in false advertising MDL class action challenging healthy, natural and non-GMO statements on the labels of snack products. Cleveland v. Campbell Soup Co., 647 F.Supp.3d 772, (N.D. Cal. 2022) Successive motions to dismiss granted in false advertising consumer class action challenging a front-of-pack 0g Total Sugars statement. Zurilene v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc., --- F.Supp.3d ---, 2022 WL 816636 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 17, 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled “rich milk chocolate.” Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of “Vanilla Milk Chocolate Ice Cream Bars” without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff was attempting to impose label requirements that were in addition to or different from FDA regulations and, therefore, the theory of liability was preempted. Yu v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc. --- F.Supp.3d ---, 2022 WL 799563 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois consumer protection laws regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled “rich milk chocolate.” Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of the ice cream bars without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff had no private right of action to enforce FDA regulations, and that plaintiff’s theory of deception was not plausible because, among other reasons, the coating does contain FDA standard-of-identify chocolate, the label fully discloses the presence of oil in the ingredient list, and the label never suggests that the product does not contain oil. Kamara v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc., --- F.Supp.4th, 2021 WL 5234882 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) Achieved a complete victory for Pepperidge Farm in a putative nationwide consumer class action under New York consumer protection law. The complaint alleged that Pepperidge’s Golden Butter Crackers misled consumers into believing that the product does not include oil. In a 2021 published decision dismissing the complaint with prejudice, the court clarified the principle that false advertising claims must be assessed in context. The court also assessed the plausibility of the complaint’s theory of deception against recent Second (Mantikas) and Seventh (Bell) Circuit precedents, and found the complaint deficient. See also Floyd v. Pepperidge Farm, Incorporated, -- F. Supp. 3d--, 2022 WL 203071 (S.D. Ill. Jan, 24, 2022). Chong v. Kind LLC, 585 F. Supp. 3d 1215, (N.D. Cal. 2022). Motion to dismiss granted in class action challenging front-of-pack protein claim on plant-based product. Plaintiffs alleged that the quantitative statement was deceptive and contrary to FDA regulations because it wasn’t corrected for digestibility. Based on our arguments, court reversed a decision it had made on that same issue in a similar lawsuit just a year before. Court also ruled in favor of our client on Buckman preemption, holding that plaintiffs were not able to enforce FDA regulations under the guise of consumer deception claims. Wong v. The Vons Companies, Inc., 2020 WL 5632305 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Sept. 14, 2020) \u0026amp; 2020 WL 6161875 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Oct. 13, 2020). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging label statement on fresh poultry products. Decision affirmed on appeal in unanimous opinion. 2022 WL 1210445 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2022). Cheslow v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co., 472 F.Supp.3d 686 (N.D. Cal. 2020) \u0026amp; 445 F.Supp.3d 8 (N.D. Cal. 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white chips product. Prescott v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 2020 WL 3035798 (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white morsels product. Macedonia Distributing, Inc. v. S-L Distribution Co., LLC, 2020 WL 610702 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2020). Certification denied in distributor class action alleging underpayment for distribution businesses. Porath v. Logitech, Inc., 2019 WL 6134936 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2019). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product. Parker v. Logitech, Inc., 2017 WL 4701044 (Cal. Super., Alameda County Oct. 18, 2017). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product. Pelayo v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 989 F. Supp. 2d 973 (C.D. Cal. 2013). Defended Buitoni brand of products in case challenging “natural” label statements. Case dismissed with prejudice at the pleading stage. The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to offer an objective or plausible definition of the allegedly-deceptive phrase “all natural,” stating that “the reasonable consumer is aware that Buitoni pastas are not ‘springing fully formed from ravioli trees and tortellini bushes.’” Shin v. Campbell Soup, No. 17-1082 (C.D. Cal.). Secured a victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in the Central District of California dismissed a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that labeling of less sodium and fat-free products was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged statements were accurate and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. Lucido v. Nestlé Purina Petcare Company, 217 F.Supp.3d 1098 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Successfully moved for summary judgment and to strike plaintiffs’ experts in a consumer class action alleging that Purina failed to disclose that Beneful dog food was harmful. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ case was entirely dependent on their experts’ opinions, but the opinions were unreliable and inadmissible. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ case had no evidentiary support and could not proceed. Kane v. Chobani LLC,645 Fed. App’x. 593 (9th Cir. 2016); see also 973 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (N.D. Cal. 2014), 2013 WL 5289253 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2013), and 2013 WL 3776172 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2013). Defense of a putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to Greek yogurt products marketed as containing “only natural ingredients” and listing “evaporated cane juice” as an ingredient. A motion to dismiss was granted. 2013 WL 5289253. The plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction was denied. 2013 WL 3776172. A motion to disqualify the plaintiffs’ expert was granted. 2013 WL 3991107. After a third amended complaint, a second motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice. 2014 WL 657300. The Ninth Circuit then stayed the case. Wysong Corp. v. APN, Inc., 889 F.3d 267 (6th Cir. 2018). Secured a victory for Nestlé Purina Petcare Company when a federal judge in the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed with prejudice a Lanham Act complaint alleging that using realistic images of meat and vegetables on pet food labels was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiff’s theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged label images, especially when considered in context, were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. Significantly, the court denied further amendments and entered judgment in favor of our client. In re KIND LLC “Healthy and All Natural” Litigation, 209 F. Supp. 3d 689 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for KIND snack bars when a federal judge in the Southern District of New York dismissed claims in an MDL consumer class action challenging KIND’s “healthy” labeling and stayed claims challenging “natural” labeling pending FDA’s consideration of the issue. Cerreta v. Laclede, Inc., No. 14-8066 (C.D. Cal.) (removed from L.A. Sup. Ct.). Defending consumer packaged goods company in nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection law regarding “natural” labeling of personal care products. Greenberg v. Galderma Laboratories, L.P., No. 3:16cv6090 (N.D. Cal.). Defended personal care product company against allegations of false advertising re label statements. Magier v. Tribe Mediterranean Foods, Inc., No. 1:15cv5781 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended manufacturer of hummus against claims of false advertising relating to “natural” label statements. Rhinerson v. Van’s International Foods ,No. 3:13cv9523 (N.D. Cal.). Defended frozen waffle manufacturer against putative nationwide consumer class action challenging the “natural” labeling of the products. Backus v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 167 F. Supp. 3d 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for Nestlé USA and its iconic Coffee-mate brand when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a consumer class action complaint. Plaintiffs alleged that Nestlé’s mere use of partially hydrogenated oil in Coffee-mate was unlawful, and that labeling statements touting the product as having “0g Trans Fat” was misleading. The court ruled that plaintiff’s ‘use’ theory was an obstacle to federal law and therefore preempted, and that plaintiff’s false advertising theory, which attempted to impose labeling requirements not identical to federal law was expressly preempted. Workman v. Plum PBC, 141 F. Supp. 3d 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2015). Secured a victory for Campbell Soup and its subsidiary Plum Organics when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that food labeling was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ theory of deception was not plausible because the labels were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. Ross v. Nestlé USA, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-09563 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended Lean Cuisine products against false advertising claims relating to “no preservatives” label statement and the presence of citric acid in products. Astiana v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, No. 11-2910 (N.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to Häagen-Dazs and Dreyer’s ice cream products labeled “All Natural.” This case was consolidated with the copy-cat case Rutledge-Muhs v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream. The action was dismissed with prejudice. Stoltz v. Chobani, LLC, No. 1:14cv3827 (E.D.N.Y.). Defended nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising of Greek Yogurt products, marketed as “Greek Yogurt,” “0%,” “evaporated cane juice,” and natural and healthy. Chavez v. Nestlé USA, No. 09-9192 (C.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action against Nestlé USA alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to juice products marketed as supporting brain development, immunity and digestive health. Case dismissed following three successive, successful motions to dismiss (2011 WL 10565797 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011), 2011 WL 2150128 (C.D. Cal. May 19, 2011)). Judgment in defendant’s favor affirmed in part and reversed in part. 511 Fed. App’x. 606 (9th Cir. 2013). Ibarrola v. KIND LLC, 83 F. Supp. 3d 751 (N.D. Ill. 2014). Secured a complete victory for client KIND LLC in the Northern District of Illinois when Judge Sara Ellis dismissed a putative nationwide consumer class action premised on allegations that KIND deceived consumers by including a “No Refined Sugars” statement on the label of snack foods. Judge Ellis granted KIND’s motion to dismiss an amended complaint with prejudice, holding that plaintiff failed to allege a plausible theory of deception. Boyle v. KIND LLC, No. 1:13cv8365 (S.D.N.Y). Defended nationwide consumer class action challenging the labeling of snack bar products as insinuating that consuming the products will not lead to weight gain and that the product is better-for-you product. Also defended copy-cat, follow-on action Bailey v. KIND LLC, No. 8:16cv168(C.D. Cal.). Trazo v. Nestlé USA, Inc., No. 5:12cv2272 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Coffee-mate powder products marketed as “0g trans fat.” This case is notable for the scope of its predecessor case at filing—challenging an open-ended number of the products of a major food manufacturer. The broadside attack featured multiple misbranding allegations on diverse labeling statements. Of special significance, we dealt a massive blow when its separate and innovative motion to strike the plaintiffs' class allegations—at the pleading stage—was granted. 201 WL 4083218 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2013). The challenged products were subsequently reduced from “open-ended” to four and the misbranding theories have been reduced from nine to four. Belli II v. Nestlé USA, Inc., No. 5:14cv283 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Eskimo Pie products marketed as “No Sugar Added.” In re Gerber Probiotic Sales Practices Litigation, No. 12-835 (D. N.J.). Defended Gerber in ten-case consolidated nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under consumer protection and warranty laws of multiple states with respect to baby formula and cereal products labeled as containing immune-supporting probiotics, digestion-supporting prebiotics, and brain and eye development-supporting DHA. Motions to consolidate cases granted. Burns v. Gerber Prods. Co., 922 F.Supp.2d 1168 (E.D. Wash. 2013); Hawkins v. Gerber Prods. Co., 924 F.Supp.2d 1208 (S.D. Cal. 2013). Reilly v. Amy’s Kitchen , 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (S.D. Fla. 2014); see also 2014 WL 905441 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2014) Defended against putative Florida consumer class action alleging false advertising under Florida consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient “evaporated cane juice.” A federal judge first denied plaintiff’s request to reinstate claims over 57 products that the named plaintiff never purchased. The court then dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds because the amount at issue for the three products the named plaintiff did purchase fell below the Class Action Fairness Act amount in controversy requirement. Figy v. Amy’s Kitchen, Inc., 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (N.D. Cal. 2014). Defended against putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient “evaporated cane juice.” A federal judge dismissed action without leave to amend based on primary jurisdiction of FDA (later converted to stay). Simpson v. California Pizza Kitchen, 989 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (S.D. Cal. 2013), 2013, 2013 WL 5718479 (S.D. Cal Oct. 1, 2013). Defended a putative nationwide consumer class action against several frozen pizza brands owned by Nestlé USA and California Pizza Kitchen alleging violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and statutory nuisance law. This was a bellwether case. Using the class action vehicle, plaintiffs sought to impose an unprecedented judicial ban on artificial trans fats in frozen pizza products. Any success could have “opened the floodgates” to numerous other cases seeking to ban individual ingredients. A motion to dismiss was granted as to the entire complaint, with prejudice and without leave to amend. Brower v. Campbell Soup Company, 243 F. Supp. 3d 1124, 2017 WL 1063470 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2017). Obtained a dismissal with prejudice for Campbell Soup in a consumer class challenging the labels of Chunky Healthy Request soup products. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ state-law false advertising claims are preempted by the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act and the Federal Meat Inspection Act. Bell v. Campbell Soup Co., 65 F. Supp. 3d 1328 (N.D. Fla. 2014). Secured victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in Florida dismissed with prejudice an amended consumer class action complaint in an action that initially had challenged the labeling of more than 50 products from multiple product lines under Campbell’s iconic V8 brand. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ amended claims (following an initial motion to dismiss) were expressly preempted as attempting to impose state-law labeling requirements that were not identical to federal labeling law and that Campbell’s labels complied with the federal requirements “to the letter.”","searchable_name":"Keri Borders","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":32,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":436483,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5129,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eLisa Bugni is a partner in the firm's Securities and Shareholder Litigation practice. Her practice focuses on a variety of securities litigation matters and other complex commercial and business-related litigation. Ms. Bugni has experience in securities fraud class actions, shareholder derivative suits, M\u0026amp;A litigation, appraisal actions, and post-closing transaction disputes.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMs. Bugni received her J.D., magna cum laude, in 2003 from the University of Miami School of Law, where she was elected to membership in the Order of the Coif and served as articles and comments editor for the University of Miami Inter-American Law Review. She received her B.A.,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003emagna cum laude\u003c/em\u003e, in American Studies from the University of Notre Dame in 2000.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMs. Bugni is admitted to practice before the state courts of California, Georgia and Florida, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and the United States District Courts for the Northern District of Georgia, the Middle District of Georgia, and the Southern District of Florida. She is a member of the Georgia Bar Association, the Florida Bar Association and the Atlanta Bar Association.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"lisa-bugni","email":"lbugni@kslaw.com","phone":"+1 404 934 0565","matters":["\u003cp\u003eDefeated a shareholder\u0026rsquo;s attempt to enjoin Apple\u0026rsquo;s merger with fingerprint sensor company, AuthenTec.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal with prejudice of a securities class action brought against an international power company and its directors and officers.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePrevailed in a post-closing transaction arbitration for a large home improvement specialty retailer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated in arbitration a claimant\u0026rsquo;s request for tens of millions of dollars for alleged breach of a product development contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal with prejudice of an action brought by a former executive arising out of a merger.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal with prejudice of a consumer class action alleging false advertising.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as counsel in several securities class actions to companies, directors and officers, including multiple heath care companies, a large packaging company, a consumer products company, and a technology company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as counsel in several M\u0026amp;A litigation matters to companies, directors and officers, including matters involving technology, banking, consumer products, and health care companies.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":20,"guid":"20.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":766,"guid":"766.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Bugni","nick_name":"Lisa","clerkships":[{"name":"Intern, Magistrate Stephen T. Brown, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida","years_held":"2001"}],"first_name":"Lisa","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[{"id":2236,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"magna cum laude, Order of the Coif","is_law_school":1,"graduation_date":"2003-01-01 00:00:00 UTC"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eLisa Bugni is a partner in the firm's Securities and Shareholder Litigation practice. Her practice focuses on a variety of securities litigation matters and other complex commercial and business-related litigation. Ms. Bugni has experience in securities fraud class actions, shareholder derivative suits, M\u0026amp;A litigation, appraisal actions, and post-closing transaction disputes.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMs. Bugni received her J.D., magna cum laude, in 2003 from the University of Miami School of Law, where she was elected to membership in the Order of the Coif and served as articles and comments editor for the University of Miami Inter-American Law Review. She received her B.A.,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003emagna cum laude\u003c/em\u003e, in American Studies from the University of Notre Dame in 2000.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMs. Bugni is admitted to practice before the state courts of California, Georgia and Florida, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and the United States District Courts for the Northern District of Georgia, the Middle District of Georgia, and the Southern District of Florida. She is a member of the Georgia Bar Association, the Florida Bar Association and the Atlanta Bar Association.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eDefeated a shareholder\u0026rsquo;s attempt to enjoin Apple\u0026rsquo;s merger with fingerprint sensor company, AuthenTec.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal with prejudice of a securities class action brought against an international power company and its directors and officers.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePrevailed in a post-closing transaction arbitration for a large home improvement specialty retailer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated in arbitration a claimant\u0026rsquo;s request for tens of millions of dollars for alleged breach of a product development contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal with prejudice of an action brought by a former executive arising out of a merger.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal with prejudice of a consumer class action alleging false advertising.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as counsel in several securities class actions to companies, directors and officers, including multiple heath care companies, a large packaging company, a consumer products company, and a technology company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as counsel in several M\u0026amp;A litigation matters to companies, directors and officers, including matters involving technology, banking, consumer products, and health care companies.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":5918}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-09-02T04:55:38.000Z","updated_at":"2025-09-02T04:55:38.000Z","searchable_text":"Bugni{{ FIELD }}Defeated a shareholder’s attempt to enjoin Apple’s merger with fingerprint sensor company, AuthenTec.{{ FIELD }}Obtained dismissal with prejudice of a securities class action brought against an international power company and its directors and officers.{{ FIELD }}Prevailed in a post-closing transaction arbitration for a large home improvement specialty retailer.{{ FIELD }}Defeated in arbitration a claimant’s request for tens of millions of dollars for alleged breach of a product development contract.{{ FIELD }}Obtained dismissal with prejudice of an action brought by a former executive arising out of a merger. {{ FIELD }}Obtained dismissal with prejudice of a consumer class action alleging false advertising.{{ FIELD }}Served as counsel in several securities class actions to companies, directors and officers, including multiple heath care companies, a large packaging company, a consumer products company, and a technology company.{{ FIELD }}Served as counsel in several M\u0026amp;A litigation matters to companies, directors and officers, including matters involving technology, banking, consumer products, and health care companies.{{ FIELD }}Lisa Bugni is a partner in the firm's Securities and Shareholder Litigation practice. Her practice focuses on a variety of securities litigation matters and other complex commercial and business-related litigation. Ms. Bugni has experience in securities fraud class actions, shareholder derivative suits, M\u0026amp;A litigation, appraisal actions, and post-closing transaction disputes.\nMs. Bugni received her J.D., magna cum laude, in 2003 from the University of Miami School of Law, where she was elected to membership in the Order of the Coif and served as articles and comments editor for the University of Miami Inter-American Law Review. She received her B.A., magna cum laude, in American Studies from the University of Notre Dame in 2000.\nMs. Bugni is admitted to practice before the state courts of California, Georgia and Florida, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and the United States District Courts for the Northern District of Georgia, the Middle District of Georgia, and the Southern District of Florida. She is a member of the Georgia Bar Association, the Florida Bar Association and the Atlanta Bar Association. Partner University of Notre Dame Notre Dame Law School University of Miami University of Miami School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. District Court for the Central District of California U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia California Florida Georgia Dress for Success Friends of the Children Intern, Magistrate Stephen T. Brown, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida Defeated a shareholder’s attempt to enjoin Apple’s merger with fingerprint sensor company, AuthenTec. Obtained dismissal with prejudice of a securities class action brought against an international power company and its directors and officers. Prevailed in a post-closing transaction arbitration for a large home improvement specialty retailer. Defeated in arbitration a claimant’s request for tens of millions of dollars for alleged breach of a product development contract. Obtained dismissal with prejudice of an action brought by a former executive arising out of a merger.  Obtained dismissal with prejudice of a consumer class action alleging false advertising. Served as counsel in several securities class actions to companies, directors and officers, including multiple heath care companies, a large packaging company, a consumer products company, and a technology company. Served as counsel in several M\u0026amp;A litigation matters to companies, directors and officers, including matters involving technology, banking, consumer products, and health care companies.","searchable_name":"Lisa Bugni","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":101,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":430705,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6692,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eIsabel Bussarakum focuses on white-collar criminal defense and complex civil litigation.\u0026nbsp; In criminal cases, she\u0026nbsp;has represented individuals accused of\u0026nbsp;wire fraud, money laundering, insider trading, campaign finance violations, customs fraud, health care fraud,\u0026nbsp;false advertising, and violations relating to protest activity,\u0026nbsp;among other allegations.\u0026nbsp; In the civil sector, she has represented companies in a variety of business disputes, including\u0026nbsp;in\u0026nbsp;breach-of-contract, intellectual property, employment, and class action cases.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIsabel brings first-chair trial and extensive courtroom experience, having previously served as a former Deputy Federal Public Defender in the Central District of California for more than six years.\u0026nbsp; In that capacity, she represented clients under the highest stakes, and in the process of doing so, honed her ability to litigate with creativity, diligence, and\u0026nbsp;persistence.\u0026nbsp; She obtained a judgment of acquittal in a wire fraud and money laundering case, persuaded the government to dismiss a threats charge\u0026nbsp;against a protester, obtained a rare diversion deal\u0026nbsp;in a bank fraud case, and\u0026nbsp;won dismissals in multiple immigration-related offenses.\u0026nbsp; In addition to handling her own caseload, she also served as a supervisor during her last two years.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to government service, Isabel worked at a\u0026nbsp;boutique litigation\u0026nbsp;firm, where she represented clients in a wide variety of civil and criminal cases in state and federal court.\u0026nbsp; There, she was part of a trade secret trial team that won a $6.1 million verdict, and she first-chaired an arbitration resulting in a multi-million dollar breach-of-contract award for a studio.\u0026nbsp; Before that, Isabel served as a judicial clerk in the Central District of California.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr data-cke-eol=\"1\" /\u003e\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"isabel-bussarakum","email":"ibussarakum@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":11,"guid":"11.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Bussarakum","nick_name":"Isabel","clerkships":[{"name":"Judicial Clerk, Michael W. Fitzgerald, Central District of California","years_held":"2013 - 2014"}],"first_name":"Isabel","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2605,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2011-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":14,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eIsabel Bussarakum focuses on white-collar criminal defense and complex civil litigation.\u0026nbsp; In criminal cases, she\u0026nbsp;has represented individuals accused of\u0026nbsp;wire fraud, money laundering, insider trading, campaign finance violations, customs fraud, health care fraud,\u0026nbsp;false advertising, and violations relating to protest activity,\u0026nbsp;among other allegations.\u0026nbsp; In the civil sector, she has represented companies in a variety of business disputes, including\u0026nbsp;in\u0026nbsp;breach-of-contract, intellectual property, employment, and class action cases.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIsabel brings first-chair trial and extensive courtroom experience, having previously served as a former Deputy Federal Public Defender in the Central District of California for more than six years.\u0026nbsp; In that capacity, she represented clients under the highest stakes, and in the process of doing so, honed her ability to litigate with creativity, diligence, and\u0026nbsp;persistence.\u0026nbsp; She obtained a judgment of acquittal in a wire fraud and money laundering case, persuaded the government to dismiss a threats charge\u0026nbsp;against a protester, obtained a rare diversion deal\u0026nbsp;in a bank fraud case, and\u0026nbsp;won dismissals in multiple immigration-related offenses.\u0026nbsp; In addition to handling her own caseload, she also served as a supervisor during her last two years.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to government service, Isabel worked at a\u0026nbsp;boutique litigation\u0026nbsp;firm, where she represented clients in a wide variety of civil and criminal cases in state and federal court.\u0026nbsp; There, she was part of a trade secret trial team that won a $6.1 million verdict, and she first-chaired an arbitration resulting in a multi-million dollar breach-of-contract award for a studio.\u0026nbsp; Before that, Isabel served as a judicial clerk in the Central District of California.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr data-cke-eol=\"1\" /\u003e\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":12021}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-06-18T18:00:35.000Z","updated_at":"2025-06-18T18:00:35.000Z","searchable_text":"Bussarakum{{ FIELD }}Isabel Bussarakum focuses on white-collar criminal defense and complex civil litigation.  In criminal cases, she has represented individuals accused of wire fraud, money laundering, insider trading, campaign finance violations, customs fraud, health care fraud, false advertising, and violations relating to protest activity, among other allegations.  In the civil sector, she has represented companies in a variety of business disputes, including in breach-of-contract, intellectual property, employment, and class action cases.\nIsabel brings first-chair trial and extensive courtroom experience, having previously served as a former Deputy Federal Public Defender in the Central District of California for more than six years.  In that capacity, she represented clients under the highest stakes, and in the process of doing so, honed her ability to litigate with creativity, diligence, and persistence.  She obtained a judgment of acquittal in a wire fraud and money laundering case, persuaded the government to dismiss a threats charge against a protester, obtained a rare diversion deal in a bank fraud case, and won dismissals in multiple immigration-related offenses.  In addition to handling her own caseload, she also served as a supervisor during her last two years.\nPrior to government service, Isabel worked at a boutique litigation firm, where she represented clients in a wide variety of civil and criminal cases in state and federal court.  There, she was part of a trade secret trial team that won a $6.1 million verdict, and she first-chaired an arbitration resulting in a multi-million dollar breach-of-contract award for a studio.  Before that, Isabel served as a judicial clerk in the Central District of California.\n Counsel Columbia University Columbia University Yale University Yale Law School U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Central District of California California Judicial Clerk, Michael W. Fitzgerald, Central District of California","searchable_name":"Isabel Bussarakum","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null}]}}