SAN DIEGO (Legal Newsline) - Class action lawyers won't be moving forward with their PFAS lawsuit against the Mediterranean food restaurant chain Cava Grill.
Plaintiffs Neil Hamman and Michael Stewart voluntarily dismissed their case, with prejudice, on April 12 in San Diego federal court before ever moving for certification of a class. A settlement for both individuals is possible, though no details regarding one were included.
Their case lasted two years and survived Cava's motion to dismiss.
PFAS are chemicals found in firefighting foam and consumer products like non-stick cookware and have made their way into the bloodstreams of virtually every American. The case against Cava Grill is similar to others against chains like Burger King and McDonald's and alleges Cava misled consumers with promises to rid its packaging of PFAS.
PFAS lawsuits blame the chemicals for a variety of health problems, some of which were linked by a health study that was part of a settlement with DuPont. But others say the science on how PFAS affect the human body is incomplete.
Judge Michael Anello last year allowed the case to move past Cava's first motion to dismiss, leading the plaintiff's attorneys to file an amended complaint to address other issues in Anello's order.
Anello dismissed eight claims in February 2023 but denied dismissal of four others, and Bursor & Fisher's SAC made those changes.
He gave the green light to claims for violations of California's Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act, as well as breach of implied warranty under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and violation of California's False Advertising Law.
"Plaintiffs premise their claims on the theory that the marketing materials they relied on in purchasing Defendant's products are misleading because they fail to disclose that they contain organic fluorine, an indicator of PFAS, while claiming that the products are 'healthy' and 'sustainable,'" Anello wrote then.
"How reasonable consumers would interpret Defendant's representations in its marketing is a question of fact, and not a question that the court can resolve at this stage."
Timothy Fisher represented the plaintiffs, while Justin Lewis of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani represented Cava.