Quantcast

Class action lawyers take Krab vs. Crab debate to Ninth Circuit

LEGAL NEWSLINE

Friday, November 22, 2024

Class action lawyers take Krab vs. Crab debate to Ninth Circuit

Federal Court
Pfchangs

PASADENA, Calif. (Legal Newsline) – The lawyers who snagged a client who claimed to be confused by the word “krab” on a P.F. Chang’s menu have filed their appellate brief after being told by a federal judge that no reasonable consumer could have been misled.

Attorneys at the Los Angeles firms Yoon Law, Lim Law Group and Law Offices of Jong Yun Kim submitted their brief on May 8 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

They’re appealing Judge Percy Anderson’s order that granted P.F. Chang’s motion to dismiss earlier this year. They say claims made under consumer protection laws they are citing should only be dismissed this early in rare situations.

“This is not one of them,” the brief says. “(Plaintiff Chansue) Kang has articulated, in plausible terms, why a product made entirely of imitation crab and no authentic crab could render the ingredient labels ‘krab’ and ‘krab mix’ as misleading.

“The district court’s order is tantamount to a determination that, as a matter of law, reasonable consumers would all understand ‘krab’ does not contain any percentage of authentic crab whatsoever.”

Kang alleged in a complaint that the P.F. Chang’s China Bistro in Torrance, Calif., engaged in a bait-and-switch tactic in which the restaurant falsely labeled and advertised food products as containing crab on its menu when no crab meat was present in the product.

The food items - including kung pao dragon roll, shrimp tempura roll and California roll - allegedly contained a food item identified as “Krab Mix.”

“The mix at issue is spelled 'krab' not 'crab,'” Judge Anderson wrote. “While this might be a fanciful take on the word 'crab,' no reasonable consumer would view the words 'krab mix' to mean real crab.”

Kang alleged the restaurant had committed fraud and deceptive trade practices. The court opinion decided the plaintiff failed to make an adequate case.

As an example, the court said the product Froot Loops is a breakfast cereal no reasonable person would expect to contain real fruit.

“Second, a reasonable consumer understands that cheaper sushi rolls, such as a California Roll, contain imitation as opposed to real crab,” the opinion added.

“Other dishes on P.F. Chang’s menu are described with the use of the word 'crab,' where they contain actual crab. A reasonable consumer would recognize that the use on the menu of 'krab mix' for some items and 'crab' for others suggests 'krab mix' is not the same as 'crab.'”

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

More News