• A California federal judge denied Nestle USA Inc.’s motion for summary judgment in a suit that alleged they misled consumers on the trans fat content of Coffee-mate brand creamers. In Beasley v. Lucky Stores, Inc. et al, consumers of Coffee-mate brought a putative class action lawsuit against Nestle and a group of retail stores alleging that some flavors of Coffee-mate contained partially hydrogenated oil (PHO), an artificial form of trans fat, even though defendant’s labels included nutrient claims, such as “0g Trans Fat.”
  • In the motion for summary judgment, Nestle and the retailers argued that the Beasley’s claims were outside the four-year statute of limitations because he testified to knowing that PHOs were a source of artificial trans fat since the 1990s, and therefore, as a reasonable consumer concerned enough to avoid trans fat, he would have checked the ingredient list. However, Beasley later corrected his testimony, stating “I’ve known trans fat was bad since I’d guess in the late 1990s, and I learned that trans fat came from PHO in 2017.”
  • U.S. District Judge Maxine M. Chesney wrote that even if Beasley’s corrections are disregarded, a triable issue of fact remains of when he learned the ingredient was in Coffee-mate, and therefore when the offense accrued for the purpose of the statute of limitations: “The Court finds a triable issue of fact exists as to whether Beasley, faced with multiple clear statements about the absence of trans fat in Coffee-mate, should have investigated the ingredient list.”
  • A Nestle spokesperson stated that “[w]hile we disagree with this ruling, it pertains only to the timeliness of the plaintiff’s claims, and is in no way determinative of the merits of the plaintiff’s allegations, which remain unproven.”