You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
-Lurid Crime Tales-
Reasonable Consumer Would Know "Crunchberries" Are Not Real
2009-06-05
Reasonable consumers (and lawyers) don't sue over something so stupid....
On May 21, a judge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California dismissed a complaint filed by a woman who said she had purchased "Cap'n Crunch with Crunchberries" because she believed "crunchberries" were real fruit. The plaintiff, Janine Sugawara, alleged that she had only recently learned to her dismay that said "berries" were in fact simply brightly-colored cereal balls, and that although the product did contain some strawberry fruit concentrate, it was not otherwise redeemed by fruit. She sued, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated consumers
So her lawyer she thinks there are other ignorant loons out there somewhere?
who also apparently believed that there are fields somewhere in our land thronged by crunchberry bushes.
"Too stupid to live" really should be a valid diagnosis.
The court, Judge Morrison England, Jr., also pointed out that the plaintiff acknowledged in her opposition to the motion to dismiss that "[c]lose inspection [of the box] reveals that Crunchberries . . . are not really berries." Plaintiff did not explain why she could not reasonably have figured this out at any point during the four years she alleged she bought Cap'n Crunch with Crunchberries in reliance on defendant's fraud.
I knew I should have posted this under "Today's Idiot"....
Finally, the court held that while a first-time loser on a motion to dismiss would typically get a chance to amend the complaint, this one wouldn't:

"In this case, . . . it is simply impossible for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint stating a claim based upon these facts. The survival of the instant claim would require this Court to ignore all concepts of personal responsibility and common sense. The Court has no intention of allowing that to happen."
Emphasis added. And in California no less! I think I'm in love.
Case dismissed.

Judge England also noted another federal court had "previously rejected substantially similar claims directed against the packaging of Fruit Loops [sic] cereal, and brought by these same Plaintiff attorneys." He found that their attack on "Crunchberries" should fare no better than their prior claims that "Froot Loops" did not contain real froot.
Methinks sanctions are in order, yer Honor....
Posted by:Barbara Skolaut

#19  Me too!
Posted by: badanov   2009-06-05 22:17  

#18  Shoot these morons and let it be known that future stupid lawsuits will result in the same.

Then shoot the lawyers that filed for the morons.
Posted by: DarthVader   2009-06-05 22:12  

#17  badanv: "I'd like to buy a vowel"
Posted by: Frank G   2009-06-05 22:00  

#16  Delicious cookies are delicious
Posted by: badanv   2009-06-05 21:45  

#15  Phfft. Next thing you know they'll file suit claiming that Count Chocula isn't really a Count.
Posted by: Iblis   2009-06-05 21:22  

#14  Hang the lawyer by his hands and beat the cost to the taxpayers out of him with a belt.
Posted by: OldSpook   2009-06-05 20:14  

#13  "Are NOT real" > Uh, uh, NNNOOOOOOOOOOOOO.....@!
D *** NG IT, HERESY, HERESY I SAY!
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2009-06-05 19:56  

#12  Shomosh was me something ate my cookie.
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2009-06-05 19:43  

#11  I thought Grape Nuts was a Social Disease.
Posted by: Shomosh Protector of the Welsh8366   2009-06-05 19:36  

#10  As another pundit asked, "what about Grape Nuts???"
Posted by: Scooter McGruder   2009-06-05 17:37  

#9  here's his website and contact info if you want to congratulate him on his loss
Posted by: Frank G   2009-06-05 16:56  

#8  :-) sorry - don't know the target chap
Posted by: Frank G   2009-06-05 16:46  

#7  Frank - you need to make a bypass through Harold Hewell's bedroom while he is asleep........

Calling the D9's and D10's

Posted by: 3dc   2009-06-05 16:26  

#6  it's positively painful to see what greedy fools are suing over

A pretty blatant attempt at an early retirement. To me what is disturbing is that there are enough people who believe the system is so fuc&ed up that they feel they stand a reasonable chance to get away with it. Common sense has taken so much of a back seat that too many court cases are decided by side-effects of previous court cases, instead of common sense and law being applied directly to the court case at hand.
Posted by: gorb   2009-06-05 16:13  

#5  I've been perusing that website, and it's positively painful to see what greedy fools are suing over.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2009-06-05 16:04  

#4  Again with the cereal fetish...

A mom from California is suing three major cereal manufacturers this morning. She says the companies intentionally misled consumers with claims of low-sugar cereals that are replaced by equally fattening carbohydrates. Jennifer Hardee is suing General Mills, Kellogg's and Kraft Foods, the parent company of Post. She joins me now from Sacramento, along with her lawyer, Harold Hewell.

He's out of San Diego. Ever hear of this guy, Frank?
Posted by: tu3031   2009-06-05 16:02  

#3  He seems to have a "thing" about cereal...

SACRAMENTO (CN) - A federal class action claims that General Mills pushes Cheerios with false claims that it will lower cholesterol and prevent heart attacks. laintiffs claim the U.S. FDA warned General Mills in a May 5 letter that the label on its Cheerios Toasted Whole Grain Oat Cereal violated the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.

According to the complaint, the FDA specifically objected to these claims on the label: "you can Lower Your Cholesterol 4% in 6 weeks"; and "Did you know that in just 6 weeks Cheerios can reduce bad cholesterol by an average of 4 percent? Cheerios is ... clinically proven to lower cholesterol. A clinical study showed that eating two 1 1/2 cup servings daily of Cheerios cereal reduced bad cholesterol when eaten as part of a diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol."

The class claims that the label for regular Cheerios makes similar claims, but boasts of "10% in one month!".Plaintiffs seek punitive damages and costs. They are represented by Harold Hewell of San Diego, Howard Rubinstein of Aspen, Colo., and Joe Whatley Jr. with Whatley, Drake & Kallas of New York, N.Y.
Posted by: tu3031   2009-06-05 15:53  

#2  this is too STUPID to comment on....unbeleivable
Posted by: Jarong de Medici3580   2009-06-05 15:48  

#1  The judge noted that the same plaintiffs firm, Hewell Law Firm in San Diego, had filed a similar claim against the packaging of Fruit Loops cereal, which was rejected by another California district court. The Hewell Law Firm is headed by Harold Hewell, identified by the State Bar web site as a graduate of the California Western School of Law in San Diego and admitted to the bar in California in 1994.

I believe some research is in order...
Posted by: tu3031   2009-06-05 15:45  

00:00