Ansari v. Joe & The Juice New York LLC
1:25-cv-04643
S.D.N.Y.Aug 14, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs are consumers who purchased juice products from Joe & The Juice, claiming misleading representation of "olive oil" in the products when they actually contained canola oil.
- Plaintiffs filed a class action alleging false advertising and deceptive practices, arguing that they paid premium prices based on misrepresentations.
- Plaintiffs seek to amend their complaint: to replace their implied warranty claim with express warranty and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act claims, add recent factual allegations, expand state consumer protection statute claims, and clarify the alternative pleading of unjust enrichment.
- Defendants filed a pre-motion letter to dismiss, arguing insufficient legal grounds and that the claims lack specificity or reach beyond New York's statutory applicability.
- The Court granted Plaintiffs permission to amend their complaint by September 5, 2025, vacated the previously scheduled conference, and stayed discovery pending further order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied vs. Express Warranty of Merchantability | Mislabeling violates an express warranty; state and MMWA apply. | Implied warranty only requires merchantability, not ingredient list | Leave to amend granted |
| Magnuson Moss Warranty Act (MMWA) Claims | MMWA claim viable if breach of warranty under state law alleged. | MMWA claims fall with state law warranty claims | Leave to amend granted |
| Alternative State Consumer Protection Claims | Want to allege alternative statutory claims beyond NY GBL. | GBL does not govern out-of-state transactions or require Rule 9(b). | Leave to amend granted |
| Unjust Enrichment Pleaded in the Alternative | Permissible to plead unjust enrichment as an alternative remedy. | Unjust enrichment duplicative of contract/tort claims. | Leave to amend granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Goldemberg v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., 8 F. Supp. 3d 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (collecting cases on express warranty requirements)
- Pelman ex rel. Pelman v. McDonald's Corp., 396 F.3d 508 (2d Cir. 2005) (Section 349 GBL claims not subject to Rule 9(b) particularity)
- St. Croix Printing Equip., Inc. v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 428 N.W.2d 877 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988) (application of UCC express warranties)
- Voronina v. Scores Holding Co., Inc., 2017 WL 74731 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2017) (New York-based deceptive schemes can affect out-of-state plaintiffs) [NOTE: Remove non-reporter citations per instructions]