On May 03, 2019 a
Complaint,Petition
was filed
involving a dispute between
Lynn, Teah,
and
Rite Aid Corporation A Delaware Corporation,
for Product Liability-Complex
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
1 GERALD B MALANGA ESQ SBN 167065
LATTIE MALANGA LIBERTINO LLP
2
3731 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 860
SUPERIQ
COUNTY O SAN
OUR7 CALIFQRNIA
0
Los Angeles California 90010 RNARDINt
3 SAN BERt ARt IN aTF21C7
323 938 3102 Telephone
4 323 938 0110 Facsimile
gmalanga@lmllaw com
5
ALICE A CURRY SBN 173348 BY l
ESQ j
6 ANI L PA iiS C PUT
LAW OFFICE OF ALICE A CiJRRY
P O Box 2861
Malibu California 90265
g 917 921 4768 Telephone
acurrylaw@gmail com
9
Attorneys for PiaintiffTeah Lynn
10
Individually and on behalfof all others
ll similarly situated individuals
12
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
13
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
14
is
TEAH LYNN individually and on behalf of a Case No Cf DS 19i390
16 class of similarly situated individuals
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
17
Plaintiff 1 California Unfair Competition Law
g
Violation of Cal Bus Prof Code
19 v 17200 et seq
2 California Consumers Legal Remedies
20 RITE AID CORPORATION a Delaware Act Violation ofCal Civil Code
Corporation and DOES 1 through 100 1750 et seq
21 3
inclusive California False Advertising Law
Violation of Cal Bus Prof Code
22
17500 et seq
23 4 Negligent Misrepresentation
Defendants 5 Breach of an Express Warranty
24 6 Breach of an Implied Warranty Of
Merchantability
25
26
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
27
28
1
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
Plaintiff Teah Lynn Plaintiff individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
2
through the undersigned attorneys upon personal knowledge as to her own actions and status and
3
upon information and belief based upon the investigation of counsel as to the remaining allegations
4
allege as follows Plaintiff Teah Lynn Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all
5
others similarly situated i e purchasers of referred to below as Product thraugh the
6
undersigned attorneys Plaintiff brings this actian against Defendant Rite Aid Corporation Rite
7
Aid or Defendant
S
NATURE OF THE ACTION
9
l Plaintiffs claim is premised on several false or misleading claims that Defendant
10
Rite Aid Corporation makes on the labels of Rite Aid Day Logic Ultimate Sheer Continuous Spray
11
Sunscreen with an advertised SPF of 85 Product Defendant markets and sells this product as an
12
SPF 85 sunscreen when in fact its SPF is well under 85 Plaintiff and the class purchased this
13
sunscreen without knowing that the SPF claims were false and they paid a premium for this
14
sunscreen based on its purported SPF level Plaintiff and the class bring this action in order to
15
recoup these overcharges
16
2 More specificaily Defendant manufactures and sells the Product with an advertised
17
SPF of 85 Defendant also charges a premium for this higher level of protection While the Product
18
sells for 1 90 oz Defendant s SPF 70 sunscreen sells 1 33 oz
19
3 Ms Lynn under the assumption that she was in fact purchasing a sunscreen with an
20
SPF of 85 purchased the Product However independent studies conducted in accordance with
Z1
FDA guidelines have recently revealed that Defendant s sunscreen does not contain an SPF of 85
22
it contains an SPF of 22
23
4 Ignoring the fact that Ms Lynn was misled into purchasing a product that could have
24
physically harmed her Defendant s sunscreen was drastically overpriced In fact given that its SPF
25
was less than 30 the Product may not have been worth anything at all
26
27
28
2
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Document Filed Date
May 03, 2019
Case Filing Date
May 03, 2019
Category
Product Liability-Complex
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
1 GERALD B MALANGA ESQ SBN 167065 LATTIE MALANGA LIBERTINO LLP 2 3731 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 860 SUPERIQ COUNTY O SAN OUR7 CALIFQRNIA 0 Los Angeles California 90010 RNARDINt 3 SAN BERt ARt IN aTF21C7 323 938 3102 Telephone 4 323 938 0110 Facsimile gmalanga@lmllaw com 5 ALICE A CURRY SBN 173348 BY l ESQ j 6 ANI L PA iiS C PUT LAW OFFICE OF ALICE A CiJRRY P O Box 2861 Malibu California 90265 g 917 921 4768 Telephone acurrylaw@gmail com 9 Attorneys for PiaintiffTeah Lynn 10 Individually and on behalfof all others ll similarly situated individuals 12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 13 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 14 is TEAH LYNN individually and on behalf of a Case No Cf DS 19i390 16 class of similarly situated individuals CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 17 Plaintiff 1 California Unfair Competition Law g Violation of Cal Bus Prof Code 19 v 17200 et seq 2 California Consumers Legal Remedies 20 RITE AID CORPORATION a Delaware Act Violation ofCal Civil Code Corporation and DOES 1 through 100 1750 et seq 21 3 inclusive California False Advertising Law Violation of Cal Bus Prof Code 22 17500 et seq 23 4 Negligent Misrepresentation Defendants 5 Breach of an Express Warranty 24 6 Breach of an Implied Warranty Of Merchantability 25 26 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 27 28 1 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 Plaintiff Teah Lynn Plaintiff individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated 2 through the undersigned attorneys upon personal knowledge as to her own actions and status and 3 upon information and belief based upon the investigation of counsel as to the remaining allegations 4 allege as follows Plaintiff Teah Lynn Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all 5 others similarly situated i e purchasers of referred to below as Product thraugh the 6 undersigned attorneys Plaintiff brings this actian against Defendant Rite Aid Corporation Rite 7 Aid or Defendant S NATURE OF THE ACTION 9 l Plaintiffs claim is premised on several false or misleading claims that Defendant 10 Rite Aid Corporation makes on the labels of Rite Aid Day Logic Ultimate Sheer Continuous Spray 11 Sunscreen with an advertised SPF of 85 Product Defendant markets and sells this product as an 12 SPF 85 sunscreen when in fact its SPF is well under 85 Plaintiff and the class purchased this 13 sunscreen without knowing that the SPF claims were false and they paid a premium for this 14 sunscreen based on its purported SPF level Plaintiff and the class bring this action in order to 15 recoup these overcharges 16 2 More specificaily Defendant manufactures and sells the Product with an advertised 17 SPF of 85 Defendant also charges a premium for this higher level of protection While the Product 18 sells for 1 90 oz Defendant s SPF 70 sunscreen sells 1 33 oz 19 3 Ms Lynn under the assumption that she was in fact purchasing a sunscreen with an 20 SPF of 85 purchased the Product However independent studies conducted in accordance with Z1 FDA guidelines have recently revealed that Defendant s sunscreen does not contain an SPF of 85 22 it contains an SPF of 22 23 4 Ignoring the fact that Ms Lynn was misled into purchasing a product that could have 24 physically harmed her Defendant s sunscreen was drastically overpriced In fact given that its SPF 25 was less than 30 the Product may not have been worth anything at all 26 27 28 2 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT