This case was last updated from U.S. District Courts on 12/03/2021 at 05:52:00 (UTC).

Canaday v. The Procter & Gamble Company

Case Summary

On December 1, 2021, Haley Canaday (“Plaintiff”), on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, represented by George Volney Granade II of Reese LLP, filed a personal property fraud lawsuit against The Procter & Gamble Company (“Defendant”), seeking declaratory relief and injunctive relief along with damages among other relief for the alleged manufacture and selling of product that contain benzene. This case was filed in the United States District Court in the Southern District of California with Judges Anthony J. Battaglia and Jill L. Burkhardt presiding.

 

In the complaint, Plaintiff alleged that, “This is a proposed class action complaint brought on behalf of a Class, as defined below, of California consumers who purchased aerosol antiperspirant products manufactured, marketed, advertised, sold and labeled by Defendant under the brand names “Secret” and “Old Spice” and “Defendant failed inform Plaintiff and the Class members that the Products are benzene, a known carcinogen. Making matters worse, Defendant discloses some ingredients, but failed to disclose the presence of benzene” and “Defendant has profited enormously from its false and misleading marketing of the Products. Consumers either would not have purchased the Products had they known they contain benzene or would have purchased less expensive products.”

 

Plaintiff also alleged that, “In making the false, misleading, and deceptive representations and omissions described herein, Defendant knew and intended that consumers would pay for, and/or pay a premium for, Products that did not disclose that they contain benzene” and “As an immediate, direct, and proximate result of Defendant’s false, misleading, and deceptive representations and omissions, Defendant injured Plaintiff and the Class members” and “Had Defendant not made the false, misleading, and deceptive representations and omissions, Plaintiff and the Class members would not have been willing to pay the same amount for the Products they purchased, and/or Plaintiff and the Class members would not have been willing to purchase the Products at all.”

 

Plaintiff further alleged that, “Plaintiff and the Class members paid for Products that did not contain benzene but received Products that contained benzene. The Products Plaintiff and the Class members received were worth less than the Products for which they paid” and “Based on Defendant’s misleading and deceptive representations, Defendant was able to, and did, charge a premium price for the Products over the cost of competitive products that did not contain benzene.”

 

There are three claims of relief laid down by Plaintiff. The first claim is for the alleged violation of the Unfair Competition Law, California Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. The second claim is for the alleged violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act California Civ. Code § 1750 et seq. The third claim is for the alleged violation of the False Advertising Law, California Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 et seq. 

 

In the prayer for relief, Plaintiff requested the court to certify this action as a class action. Further, Plaintiff requested the court for declaratory relief and injunctive relief along with damages including statutory damages; monetary damages, including but not limited to any compensatory, incidental, or consequential damages; punitive or exemplary damages along with reasonable costs and expenses of the suit including attorneys’ fees and pre- and post-judgement interest and any other relief the court deems just.

 

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    3:21-CV-02024

  • Filing Date:

    12/01/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Personal Property Fraud

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

Anthony J. Battaglia

Referral Judge

Jill L. Burkhardt

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Haley Canaday

Defendant

The Procter & Gamble Company

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

George Volney Granade, II

Attorney at Reese LLP

8484 Wilshire Boulevardsuite 515

Los Angeles, CA 90211

 

Court Documents

1 #1

Main Document

1 #1

Civil Cover Sheet

#2

(#2) Summons Issued. Counsel receiving this notice electronically should print this summons and serve it in accordance with Rule 4, Fed.R.Civ.P and LR 4.1. (axc) (Entered: 12/02/2021)

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/02/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#2) Summons Issued. Counsel receiving this notice electronically should print this summons and serve it in accordance with Rule 4, Fed.R.Civ.P and LR 4.1. (axc) (Entered: 12/02/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against The Procter & Gamble Company ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number ACASDC-16366923.), filed by Haley Canaday. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)The new case number is 3:21-cv-2024-AJB-JLB. Judge Anthony J. Battaglia and Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt are assigned to the case. (Granade, George)(axc) (Entered: 12/02/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer George Volney Granade