LOS ANGELES (Legal Newsline) – A man in Pennsylvania filed a class action lawsuit against automobile air freshener maker Glade, alleging its products leak and cause damage to a vehicle's interior.

Anthony J. Succi filed his complaint on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated on Nov. 1 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Kraco Enterprises LLC and SC Johnson & Son Inc. The lawsuit alleges violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California False Advertising Law and negligent misrepresentation.

The plaintiff alleges that he and others were enticed to purchase the products without knowledge of the likelihood of them causing unwanted or unnecessary damage to car interior, according to the complaint. The result was that consumers have allegedly incurred damages, including financial loss and damage to property and devaluation of the automobiles. 

Neither company named as defendants could be reached for comment. However, a consumer law attorney for Stanley Law Group, Stephen Gardner, provided his thoughts to Legal Newsline.

Can the court award damages in a case such as this? How would the plaintiff prove that Glade is liable for such damage to the vehicle's interior?

"If the plaintiff can prove it, sure the court can award damages," Gardner said in an email to Legal Newsline. "Proving it would require expert testimony, and I don’t have a guess at how they would do that."

Are there case examples similar to this one to draw experience from?

"Not really - a big reason why I don’t have a guess as to their proof," Gardner said.

What is Glade's likely response to this particular matter? Will they find it frivolous and seek a motion to dismiss?

"The knee-jerk reaction of a class action defendant is to file a motion to dismiss, in an effort to avoid getting the the actual facts, so I reckon they will do that," Gardner said. "They will almost certainly claim the case is frivolous, but that doesn’t mean that it is."

The complaint alleges that the companies were responsible because they did not disclose the likelihood of these damages and did not offer to reimburse consumers for losses or damages suffered.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury, maintain the case as a class action, appoint named plaintiff as the representative of the class and his counsel as class counsel, damages, restitution, interest, injunctive and/or declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees, costs and further relief that the court grants and deems appropriate. His attorneys are Richard D. McCune and David C. Wright of McCuneWright LLP in Redlands, California, and Joseph G. Sauder, Matthew D. Schelkopf and Joseph B. Kenney of McCuneWright LLP in Berwyn, Pennsylvania.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Case number 2:16-cv-08125

Want to get notified whenever we write about U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ?
Next time we write about U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, we'll email you a link to the story. You may edit your settings or unsubscribe at any time.

Organizations in this Story

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
312 N Spring St
Los Angeles, CA - 90012

More News